Hipkins Chris: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5571] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 As my colleague Grant Robertson has just pointed out it is becoming clearer as every day goes past that the National Party’s pre-election manifesto was not worth the paper it was written on. One of the cornerstones of its State sector manifesto was that it was going to protect the political neutrality of the Public Service. That is something that all New Zealanders should care about because the New Zealand Public Service is built on the idea that Governments can come and Governments can go but the Public Service will serve the Government of the day without fear or favour. It is incumbent on all of us on both sides of the Chamber to respect that distinction and to protect the political neutrality of the Public Service. 
It is not just a Government responsibility to protect the political neutrality of the Public Service; all members of Parliament have a responsibility to protect the political neutrality of the Public Service and to recognise that public servants have the same rights as individual citizens. For example a public servant is not disqualified from appearing before a select committee. A public servant is not disqualified from having an opinion on legislation. I think it is absolutely disgraceful for public servants who appear before a select committee—for example the Department of Corrections staff who appeared before the Law and Order Committee just recently—to be bullied and threatened by a member of this Parliament. I think that fundamentally undermines the nature of the New Zealand Public Service and it is disgraceful behaviour from this National-ACT Government. I am appalled that no Government Minister has expressed a concern that when members of the Public Service appeared before a select committee a member of Parliament supporting this Government threatened their jobs. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. 
I understand that the member who did it Mr Garrett does not limit his threats just to members of the Public Service. In fact I understand that he has taken to threatening other members of Parliament at select committees when he disagrees with them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member is transgressing the rules of the debate which I read out quite clearly when the debate commenced. I ask the member to return to the estimates. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I am talking about the importance of the political neutrality of the Public Service and I think that is covered under Vote State Services. In fact members will find references to it in the estimates report of the Government Administration Committee which is what we are discussing at the present time. I think that it is incumbent on all members of the House to protect the political neutrality of the Public Service regardless of which political party they are members of. All members of the Public Service are entitled to appear before a select committee for example and have a view as private citizens without fearing that they will be threatened— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member must not talk about members threatening other members. All members are honourable members. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I was actually talking about members threatening members of the public which I believe you will find is in order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. We should protect the political neutrality of the Public Service; I think all members of the House think that is very important. 
The State Services Commissioner actually has an important role in protecting the political neutrality of the Public Service. For example the State Services Commissioner may like to take an interest in the release by Government Ministers of private information held by Government departments. I think the State Services Commissioner should take an interest in that. When Paula Bennett releases the personal information of beneficiaries in order to bully them and silence her critics it has implications for the entire Public Service because it suggests that any personal information held by any Government department can be accessed by Ministers in order to bully and intimidate members of the public. 
Members of this Government seem very relaxed about bullying and intimidation when they are the ones doing it. When they are the ones doing the bullying and intimidation it is all OK. It is very much “Simon Says” from this Government. Simon says: “Do as I say not as I do.” Although members of this Government say they are opposed to violence and intimidation if they are the ones doing the bullying and the intimidation then they think it is perfectly acceptable and it is all right. It is a bit like their saying that they believe restraint in the Public Service is important except when it comes to them.