Smith Nick; Hipkins ChrisHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We are in an extraordinary situation where we're under urgency. We're debating one of the most important pieces of legislation on our statute book governing the Public Service and we are dealing with 200 pages of amendments that the Opposition only received 48 hours ago. So I do ask in your consideration that you do in fact allow us to scrutinise the changes that the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Hipkins is proposing.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's not a point of order. I give you the call the Hon Dr Nick Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Part 2 of this bill deals with the issue of Public Service reorganisations and there's a really important debate for this Parliament to have in this area. In some countries we have jurisdictions where their public service structures are so moribund that they're not able to adapt and change to new issues. And those countries require bills and Acts of Parliament many in jurisdictions to go through multiple Houses of Parliament and sometimes also to have the approval of their President or executive to be able to reorganise Government departments. I do fear that we have in New Zealand the opposite extreme that I have seen occur over and over again where it is so easy for Governments of the day of whatever political persuasion to be able to shift around the Public Service all the time. I sometimes believe that there's sort of an attitude from Ministers and Governments that if they change the name and reorganise Public Service organisations that somehow that results in better outcomes for New Zealanders. So the really important question for our Parliament in Part 2 of this bill is when the Government of the day wants to reorganise the Public Service how do we give them sufficient tools to be able to make our Public Service efficient and responsive to the challenges of the time where on the other hand it's not so loose that you can have almost a constant churn in the name and the different agencies that make up the New Zealand Public Service? And so my first point in respect of Part 2 and a question for the Minister is: does he share the concern of many submitters that this bill just makes it too easy? It makes it possible without any reference to Parliament at all to make massive changes in the make-up of the public sector. And what does he view is the right balance between a reasonable level of stability within the Public Service that means that you can build careers that you can build brains and expertise that the general public know I've got this issue. That's the agency I go to."—all that social capital that makes for a country to work well. I'm not an extremist in the sense that of course Governments need to be able to make changes. They do need to be able to adjust to challenges of the time and the changing ethos. In my political career I've seen far more emphasis rightly on protection of the environment so changes in agencies in that area. I was responsible for creating the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as an arm's length regulator so I'm not one that's opposed to change. In that instance I put an Act through Parliament to provide the stability that I think an independent agency like the EPA that New Zealand has. What this bill does—what this part does—is effectively say that it can be done by Cabinet by decree of simply—the executive can pretty much make any changes it likes across the public sector. I am of a view that if you're actually going to build up the career and the credibility you need a bit of brake you need a bit of slow-down. You actually want the reorganisation of Public Service departments not to be the first option when you've got a policy problem or issue in our country that needs addressing but actually down the order a bit and actually more of a last resort rather than a first resort to dealing with new challenges. As I interpret Part 2 of this bill my view is that you can change any Government departments simply by Order in Council by decision of the executive. I think that's too loose. I think that results in a continuing culture in New Zealand of a constant churn of a number of public agencies. I would like to know from the Government and from the Minister as to whether the intent of Part 2 and the way this bill is drafted is for those changes effectively to be made by Order in Council. If so are we not establishing a new Public Service law in which we are going to see over the next 20 years—and we hope this Act has got a similar life to the old State Sector Act 1988 that's done about 32 years—this constant churn of public departments and not actually building what we want and that is a stable effective Public Service that allows New Zealanders to hugely contribute to our country in those Public Service organisations? And I would like the Minister's views on Supplementary Order Paper 556 that I've tabled that actually says this Parliament needs to take a view about the organisation of the State.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Thank you. I think the member raises a series of very legitimate points. I think reflecting on the operation of the Public Service over the last 30 years Ministers on both sides of the House have often rushed to reorganisation ahead of looking at effectiveness. And reorganisation of course is not always the right solution to get better effectiveness out of our public services and there is a big disrupting factor. I think back to the biggest reorganisations of the Public Service—the core Public Service the departments in the Public Service—and we've seen in my time in politics the creation of the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment the creation of the Ministry for Primary Industries: significant reorganisations of the Public Service. They did not come before this House; they were done by Order in Council by the Government of the day. In that case both were National Governments—or the same National Government in fact both of those reorganisations—because that is what is allowed for now under the State Sector Act. So these provisions carry forward the existing mechanisms that apply to Government department reorganisation as apply within the State Sector Act. There is a legitimate argument about whether or not we reorganise the Public Service too often and my view is that we do. I've been quite resistant to that in my portfolio areas and actually resistant to that as other Ministers have put forward proposals to do that as well because I think sometimes we do structural reform too readily and create disruption which doesn't necessarily lead to better outcomes. So I think it's a very legitimate point the member makes.However I do believe that the flexibility in this Act is important. The executive the Government and the Public Service shouldn't need to come to Parliament every time a function shifts from one department to another which does happen on a regular basis. I think that that would create all sorts of bureaucratic problems that wouldn't be necessary. I think the member himself would acknowledge that there is a degree of change that is acceptable as part of the day-to-day operation of the Public Service and getting people in the right place. The main changes that we're dealing with here are actually how we connect up the silos that exist within the Public Service in a more effective way. The last Government was doing things in this regard. We've talked about the Social Investment Board. Some of the work that was happening there I think was trying to solve the gnarly problems that have existed ever since the State Sector Act direct was passed which is that we've created very effective silos and they're very effective when they're only dealing with issues within their silos. But when they're trying to deal with issues that cut across silos the system doesn't work as well as it should. So the provisions in this bill are designed to create new mechanisms and it is consistent with the work that was being done by the last Government to create new opportunities to join up those silos to work on some of those bigger cross-cutting issues."