Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I get incredibly nervous when Shane Jones makes a contribution on a bill that is about improving the standards and the conduct of the public sector. I just remind Mr Jones that when he became a Minister his first policy proposition was that we change the New Zealand Public Service to be more similar to the US where there are far more political appointees and that secondly he used the phrase—and Madam Deputy Speaker I'm not going to belittle the House and lower its standards but he said that we need s"-kickers into the Public Service. That is not at all consistent with the values that we hold on this side of the Parliament about a politically neutral—Hon Shane Jones: Making it up.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and effective Public Service. The member interjects and says I'm making it up. He is absolutely on the public record as saying that the Public Service needed to be supplanted by political appointees and by—seeing as he's challenged me—"shit-kickers". That's his language not mine. I apologise to Madam Deputy Speaker for using the language only used because of the challenge from Mr Jones.What we've seen from this Government is in gross contradiction to what's intended by this bill and the codes of conduct: whether it's been the secretive behaviour whether it's been the claims of Ministers assaulting staff—something I've not heard in 20 years—or whether it has been the gaping hole between the aspirations that this Government has claimed and what is actually delivered.There are three important reforms in this bill. The first of those extend the tentacles of the State Services Commissioner into the contracts for chief executives in respect of our major Crown entities. National's position has been quite clear: when you are dealing with organisations of this size and scale whether it be the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—with near on $30 billion—or whether it be the Accident Compensation Corporation for members on this side of the House getting the best person for the job that can manage those multibillion-dollar assets is more important than some puerile argument around the exact terms and conditions. It's in the taxpayers' interests that we have the very best skill set running those organisations.I did recite the example of our own experience in Government when we sought a new chief executive for one of New Zealand's largest public agencies the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. In seeking a good private sector organisation—entirely appropriate for that agency that has such a crucial role in regulating so many parts of the private economy. And actually the lack of salary was one of the reasons we were not able to attract the best quality for that agency. While we do support the provisions in the bill we at the Governance and Administration Committee—and I compliment my colleague Brett Hudson—ensured that there are some robust criteria so those values that National holds of overall performance of the public sector be upheld. The second part of this bill deals with changes to the State Services Commission in respect of the Inquiries Act 2013 and particularly in respect of the Privacy Act. It enables the State Services Commissioner to be able to exempt themselves from particular provisions of the Privacy Act. We heard good evidence that there is a case for the State Services Commissioner to be able to properly do their job when things go wrong in the public sector—standards are breached public money's not used properly—for those privacy principles to be waived. But we do express a concern and we'll say so again. That is it's all very well for this Parliament to pass special laws for the State Services Commissioner to be able to properly inquire into matters of wrongdoing when it comes to elements of the Public Service but Parliament needs to be cautious of creating laws such as the Privacy Act that prevent equivalent large-sector organisations in the private sector from being able to properly inquire. As this Parliament reviews the Privacy Act we would much prefer that we have a Privacy Act that is working for all New Zealanders public sector and private sector. Members on this side of the House are always cautious of provisions that say "These are rules that should apply to all New Zealanders but not to public servants."The third part of this bill deals with the issue of the codes of conduct and ethics and standards in the public sector. We do find it ironic—with so much messiness so many shambles around the issues of ethics and standards—that the Government is wanting to advance in this area. We've been pursuing questions about the Chief Technology Officer and the appointment. I do find it tough to be getting lectures on this bill about the neutrality of the Public Service when it is as plain as day that members opposite have been wrongly interfering in the process around the appointment of the Chief Technology Officer. I say to members opposite you can put all you like into the law around State services but actually one of the most important things a Government will do is in terms of setting standards by example. When we see the sort of dodginess from the Deputy Prime Minister when we sort of see the behaviour of the Minister—Hon Kris Faafoi: You can't be the one to give this lecture.Brett Hudson: He's seen the emails.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Kris Faafoi probably has seen those emails. I just make the point: isn't it interesting that we have a Government lecturing us about being the most open and transparent Government ever and we are none the wiser about the appointment process and the secret emails over the appointment of the Chief Technology Officer which paints such a negative picture and again reinforces both the shambles and the gap between the promise and the performance of this Government.I finally want to make some broader concerns around the direction of the performance of our State sector. One of the decisions related to this bill is in terms of removing any sort of performance measure on our public servants. If there's any responsibility that's important for this Parliament it's ensuring that for the $30 billion - plus that we spend each year of taxpayers' money on public servants we're getting the very best of services and outcomes for New Zealanders. When we remove the key targets that our Government had whether in respect of performance of police—ensuring that burglaries are responded to in a timely way—whether it be in the presence of 24/7 police stations around New Zealand or whether it's something as important as one of the most busy areas of my own constituency work as the MP for Nelson in getting access to elective surgeries again we've seen the Government remove any sort of performance measures on the Public Service and we think that is a backwards step. We note that every chief executive under our Government had a portion of their salary that was at risk—that if they didn't meet the basic performance standards they would not get that salary component. That's gone. The message that's been sent to the public sector is regardless of whether your agency for which you are responsible performs or not your pay is the same. And that is part of the broader approach by this Government where they do not understand the requirement for the public sector to reward performance and not to take this dumbing-down approach of just averaging everybody across the public sector.And here's the other irony: at the same time as the Government got rid of the at-risk component within chief executive's pay scales it also gave every one of our chief executives another week's public holiday. The question I'd love a member opposite to answer: why is it that the chief executive of any of our public agencies whether it be health or any other should get another week's holiday than the person that's doing the hard graft in our schools in our hospitals or in our police or any of our other public servants? And what was even more dodgy was that it was not in the initial Minister's press release but was hidden and not released until the Cabinet papers came out some days later.So while this bill has some small changes that affect the State sector we on this side of the House want to reinforce our values and a concern about the overall direction of State services in New Zealand. What we're seeing from our side of the House is a bloating of the bureaucracy and a constraining of those people on the front line that are doing the hard yards. I take one of my favourite departments the Department of Conservation: they've got an extra 30 staff in Wellington—policy wonks. But if you go out and talk to those people doing the hard graft out in our national parks and out in the area there has been no increase in resources for those people doing the work and that is reflected in the increase of the number of public servants in Wellington rather than in the focus we have on this side of the House on improving the front-line services that are so important for New Zealanders. On this side of the House we believe in performance. On this side of the House we believe in a neutral Public Service. On this side of the House we want high standards and there'll be a damn good start if Ministers started by setting a damn good example."