Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Madam Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill which the National Party will be opposing and which the National Party will repeal if we win the next election because this is a piece of legislation which is a solution looking for a problem. And you know it's a solution looking for a problem when you hear the member in charge start her speech by blaming her bill on Chris Hipkins. She wasn't even proud enough to say I thought of this great idea; I came to Parliament to make a real difference to solve the real problems facing our country." She just said "Oh well I got dumped with this bill from Chris Hipkins who's had it in the biscuit tin for 10 years and someone had to pick it up and I'm that someone and here I am." Well I do commend her for taking the bill through the House and doing the part of the process—which is a privilege in this Parliament to take legislation through the House and to do the work of a member of Parliament.But I do say to the member: this is not the type of achievement which she will be remembered for. This is the type of achievement which is simply I think a bunch of Labour Party backbenchers looking for work when they lose their seats at the next election. Because when they leave and are kicked out of this Parliament at the next election they'll be looking for work and plain language officers will be their new job titles. They'll be lining up for all the new plain language officer jobs. I can see Glen Bennett he's keen—he's as keen as beans to be a plain language officer after he loses the New Plymouth seat at the next election. He can't wait to get a new job working for the Ministry of Social Development or somewhere as a plain language officer. And I know that Steph Lewis who was speaking in the general debate she'll be looking forward to that; the seat of Whanganui will be coming back to the National Party and she'll be looking for work—and plain language officer I can see her. But the sad news for them is National will be repealing this piece of legislation because this is a stupid piece of legislation it doesn't actually fix anything and it's got no actual requirements on the Public Service departments to actually comply with it. So all it is is—let me count—1923 words and that's not including the explanatory note by the way; that's just the legislation. It is 1923 words which could be done by just simply the Public Service Commission writing a letter to the Public Service agency saying "Please use plain language in your documents". Now that's not many words. But they've used 1923 words to use what could be made in seven words. Absolute failure. And so it really beggars belief actually why we're here debating this. And there's absolutely no evidence that there's actually a problem. And you hear the member on the other side stand up and say "Well you know we had people say that they couldn't read documents and it's costing millions of dollars". Well this bill will cost millions of dollars. She's got no evidence to prove that the current state is costing that money; it's just some anecdotal "someone said something". But there's no costings as to what this will cost because we know that this bill will have a cost. Because what it does is it requires every single reporting agency—hundreds of agencies—to put in place plain language officers in their agencies. Plain language police! That's what they'll become. The plain language police who will be having their clipboards and their little white coats running around looking over the shoulders of all the public servants checking to see that they're using plain language—are they keeping to the guidelines are they writing with words of less than one syllable? Well that's what they'll be trying to do under the new guidelines if this bill passes. Because the Public Service Commission will have to hire a whole lot of people to issue guidelines to the Public Service and the Public Service agencies will need to employ plain language officers who will then read the guidelines. Hopefully those guidelines are less complicated than the piece of legislation. Let me read this clause to the House and to those listening; I know there's lots of people listening. "If a document contains a part that meets the requirements in subsection (1) and a part that does not section 6 applies only to the part that meets the requirements." Now that's pretty plain isn't it? Very plain language! Or what about this one: "The transitional savings and related provisions set out in Schedule 1 have effect according to their terms". I have no idea what that means. The Plain Language Bill is not even in plain language itself. How ironic is that? There are 1923 words to tell us absolutely nothing and to do absolutely nothing. But this is this Government. All they know what to do is spend tax and grow the bureaucracy. They've already hired how many thousand? Fourteen thousand new public servants in the core Public Service—14000—Angie Warren-Clark: Nurses and teachers.SIMEON BROWN: And they say "Oh those are nurses and teachers." Well I'm sorry those numbers don't include the nurses. They are employed outside. The teachers are employed separately as well. So the members on the other side are completely factually incorrect. These are core public servants working for— Hon Poto Williams: 1500 police.SIMEON BROWN: Even the police are outside those numbers and that's from a former Minister of Police. I'm not sure whether the members on the other side—they're clearly not fit for governing this country and clearly not fit for passing this piece of legislation. Numbers are clearly not their strong suit and words are not their strong suit either. But what I say is 14000 more core public servants and bureaucrats under this Government and they don't even know how many more. It will be hundreds more jobs that will need to be found; millions and millions of dollars in paying the salaries. And we're already paying $2 billion more in salaries for core public servant bureaucrats than we were when National left office. That's $2 billion every single year—$2 billion of backroom bureaucrats not front-line services. That's the legacy of this Government. That's the legacy of this Government who are failing to actually deliver on outcomes and delivering on the services New Zealanders expect. All they're delivering is more bureaucracy more taxes more spending and New Zealanders are sick and tired of it. So I'd just like to talk about some of the—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The time has come for me to leave this chair for the dinner break. Our session will resume at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. When the House adjourned we were in the third reading of the Plain Language Bill. Simeon Brown has three minutes and 18 seconds remaining to speak.SIMEON BROWN: Thank you Mr Speaker. As I was saying the National Party not only opposes this bill but will repeal this piece of legislation because all it will do is increase the amount of bureaucracy in New Zealand it will cost taxpayers millions and millions of dollars more and it will not do anything to actually help New Zealanders understand the bureaucratese of the bureaucrats which this Government has hired—14000 more bureaucrats across the Public Service under their watch costing taxpayers $2 billion. As I said it's not even necessary. All that's required if the Government feels so passionate about this is for the Minister for the Public Service to write a letter to the Public Service agency saying "Please write your documents in plain language." And in fact the submissions said exactly that. The legislation guidelines say legislation should only be made when it is necessary and the most appropriate means of achieving the policy objective. The Office of the Clerk considered the requirements in this bill to be uncertain and without consequence. It suggested that the committee explore whether officials could use non-legislative means. The reality is this is a bill looking for a problem. It is wasting Parliament's time it is going to waste the bureaucracy's time and the Public Service's time it is going to cost New Zealanders millions and millions of dollars and no one is going to be better off. But this is where this Government is at. They are the "tax spend and grow the bureaucracy" party and New Zealanders are sick and tired of it. What they want the Public Service to be focused on is making sure our children are at school; making sure the ram raids which are up 500 percent stop; making sure that people who need hip operations can get them in a timely fashion; making sure that the Public Service is actually delivering the outcomes that they need. But all this Government puts up is a bill which says "Let's have plain language police in the Public Service to try and make sure that things are written in plain English." as I said earlier using a bill with 1923 words to say what could be said in a letter of seven words. This is a particularly ridiculous piece of legislation the National Party opposes it and I say in plain language: "We will repeal it"."