Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Well Mr Speaker if there ever was a problem looking for a solution this piece of legislation is exactly that. This is the Plain Language Bill which I honestly thought the Labour Party would dump at the select committee but here they are standing up and talking about how important this piece of legislation is and how it's going to fix all the ailments and problems up and down the country. If only our Public Service departments and agencies were told from on high from this Parliament that they must issue plain language guidance to all the public servants out there to ensure that the letters the documents and the reports they write are in plain language! Well this piece of legislation will not fix one single problem. In fact it will create many more problems in New Zealand and that is why the National Party opposes this legislation. We oppose it because there is no evidence that there is a problem to be solved and it will only lead to more bureaucrats more bureaucracy and more control by the Government over our bureaucracy which should be free from political influence. We know that these plain-language officers which will be inserted into Public Service departments and agencies up and down the country will turn into the language police of the Government of the day to ensure that the Government's messaging has more influence through the Public Service departments.Let me just tell members that this is a Government that has already increased the Public Service by 14000 more bureaucrats here in Wellington costing $1.8 billion every single year in staff costs and this bill will only mean more of these staff in the Public Service. This is a Government that only knows how to do three things: more tax and we saw that with the KiwiSaver tax; more spending and we see that with a 68 percent increase in spending under this Government in the last five years; and more bureaucracy—this bill will cost more and add more bureaucracy.Every single Public Service department will be required to have plain-language officers.Hon Member: How much will they be paid?SIMEON BROWN: We don't know how much they're going to be paid. We don't know how many plain-language officers they will be appointing. There are significant questions around the cost-benefit ratio that were not addressed at the select committee and which we do not have in the select committee report and that is exactly how this Government operates. Cost-benefit analysis? Who cares? They want to look as if they're doing something and that's exactly what's happened here.There were a number of submitters who I think made some excellent points in regard to this legislation. The New Zealand Law Society pointed out that there wasn't a cost-benefit analysis in the regulatory impact statement. There was a lack of a departmental disclosure statement a regulatory impact statement and a cost-benefit analysis. So we're passing a piece of legislation we're identifying a problem but we're not asking what the cost is how many more staff will there be and what actual benefits or outcomes we're going to achieve from it—none of that stuff. Absolutely none of that stuff. This is exactly how the Labour Party governs New Zealand.The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee submitted that the policy objective was best achieved more effectively through non-legislative means. How many hours of parliamentary time select committee time have we been spending on a piece of legislation that literally just needs Ministers saying to their departments and agencies Can you please make sure people can read your documents."? That's all that's needed.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Give us an example.SIMEON BROWN: Well that was the KiwiSaver thing. The KiwiSaver flip-flop was in absolute un-plain language. There was no disclosure of that in the press release. This is a Government that decided they were going to try and slip that through without telling New Zealanders what was happening and that was absolutely not clear.The other point I'd like to make is that this piece of legislation is incredibly unclear in itself because it says and even the committee acknowledged that plain language is subjective in nature and open to interpretation. Unbelievable. Plain language is subjective in nature and open to interpretation. So whose definition of plain language are we talking about here? Is the Labour Party definition is it the National Party definition or is it the Green Party definition of plain language? That just shows exactly how ridiculous—Joseph Mooney: Hopefully not the Greens.SIMEON BROWN: Well it will end up being the Green Party. That's exactly what will happen.I'd like to touch on another select committee change that came though. This is a Government that came into office in 2017 saying "We think too much money's being spent on contractors and consultants. We need to re-establish the Public Service." and so they grew the Public Service by 14000 more bureaucrats but they're also spending more money on consultants and contractors. One of the changes in the legislation is that the plain-language officers in the original version had to be appointed from within the department but now they can come from without—now they can be contractors and consultants. So the Government can now have contractors and consultants come into the Public Service departments to be the plain-language police that this Government wants to have.Joseph Mooney: Trying to make jobs for themselves next year.SIMEON BROWN: That's a very good point Mr Mooney. Maybe the exact reason is the Labour Party is trying to find jobs for their backbench come the next election. They need jobs for their backbench come the next election. We've seen the pressure build in that backbench as they know that 20 of them won't have a job after the next election and so maybe this will be a job for them. Rachel Boyack could find a job. Maybe this is a job she could be looking for after the next election. Maybe it's a make-work scheme.What we do know is that these plain-language police will become busybodies. Not only is plain language subjective in nature and open to interpretation but this well-intentioned—possibly well-intentioned—piece of legislation will lead to language police entering our Public Service departments and telling our Public Service what language they can use what language they can't use and we know that those who control the language control the minds and that is exactly the intent behind this legislation. So while there may be good intentions on the surface what's underneath is a sinister attempt to try and control language in New Zealand. If you look at how this bill works the Government departments need to report to the Public Service Commission on how they're interpreting and using plain language in their departments. The Public Service Commission then needs to report to the Minister. This is all about centralisation of language and control and that is on top of the 50 percent increase in communications staff that this Government has already employed across the Public Service departments. There are 50 percent more communications staff to propagate the Government's message out to New Zealanders to tell New Zealanders what they want them to know. There are probably more comms staff than there are journalists in some of our major newspapers in New Zealand and this is a Government that is adamant that they want to control more and more of the messaging. We've seen the hundred-million dollars they've given to the media the media slush fund. We've seen the significant number of communications staff and now we're seeing plain-language officers being inserted in there as well. This is all about the Government wanting to control the messaging to New Zealanders more and more and that is the sinister underlying message of this piece of legislation and it's another reason why the National Party cannot and will not support it.The reality is that if New Zealanders had a choice today if they had a choice as to what they think should be focused on in our Public Service I think I know what they would choose. Would they choose more hip operations faster? Would they choose a police service that wants to crack down on crime? Do they want better educational standards so that their children can actually learn how to read and write and not have a plain-language officer to tell them what to do? Do they want a fire service that is able to respond to emergencies adequately with the right equipment and the right personnel? Do they need to have the potholes on our highways fixed in a timely manner so that our cars are not being damaged all the time? Or do we need plain-language officers in our Public Service departments?Our solution is: improve the outcomes. Focus the Public Service on the operations the things that need to be done and the outcomes that New Zealanders pay their taxes to see done. Get the potholes fixed. Make our Public Service work for New Zealanders. Fight the crime. Make sure our young people are getting the education they need. Make sure that our children can read and write. That's our solution. The Government's solution? Plain-language officers. Plain-language officers are all they've got. After five years all they've got is more bureaucracy and plain-language officers. The National Party proudly stands opposed to this piece of legislation and the Government should just dump it in the bin where it belongs.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to."