Smith Nick; Hipkins ChrisPart 3 People working in public serviceHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Part 3 of this Public Service Legislation Bill deals with the issues of those that are employed in the Public Service. The issue on which we received the most submissions from members of the public was this core issue of the structure of the senior levels of what is currently the State Services Commission with a significant number of proposals for rather than a single person having the powers invested in them as the protector and independent leader of the Public Service that to be held by a number of people and obviously the bill provides significant provisions around the role of the Deputy Public Service Commissioners. Effectively this bill does not change things significantly from the existing State Services Commissioner and the deputies.The question I firstly have for the Minister of State Services is that the bill does not make any provision for connecting the very significant public service that exists within local government and a question and a discussion that we had was whether actually the need for us to have a better connected Public Service in New Zealand would make good sense in having a Deputy Public Service Commissioner with responsibility for local government. There are a number of real public benefits for that. Certainly my experience in 14 different ministerial portfolios is a real quality of public servant where they've been able to have part of their working life in a district council maybe a regional council working with environmental issues and then another part of their career within the Ministry for the Environment that writes many of the laws and regulations that local government has.Equally so I do think this country has some performance issues in local government. If you had an agency the likes of the Public Service and a deputy commissioner in local government that would be able to review and to provide for mayors and councils some degree of independence around the capacity of those organisations to deliver. At the moment we do have an organisation of local government managers and yes it does fill a little bit of that gap but the truth is that it's run by the local government managers themselves and I'm not sure they want a really robust oversight of it. So I think this bill is a missed opportunity in which to better connect our Public Service and to include a Deputy Public Service Commissioner for local government and to include in the provisions of the bill that allow public servants to be able to continue their careers by moving from different Government agencies to include local government agencies because I think we can generate a really good quality of public servants and service by allowing that. This bill makes some useful changes to allow people to have parts of their career in different central government agencies but it excludes that local government sector.So I would like to know from the Government why in doing this reform the option of broadening the mandate of the Public Service Commission to include local government the option of having a deputy commissioner with specific responsibilities for local government and the options for public servants to be able to move between central regional and local Government and protect their employment elements were not considered in the bill's development. Finally in the same way in which the Public Service Commissioner plays a really in my view constructive role of reviewing the performance of agencies they could actually provide a very powerful central government tool to improve the capacity and the delivery of that big part of New Zealand that's involved in the local government sector.It's my view just to conclude that so many of the Acts that we pass have a component for local government to deliver and we often see that the intent of Parliament is not achieved because the local government sector hasn't had the capacity to be able to deliver those. So yes it's a detailed question with respect to Part 3 but it's a broader policy question about the interconnectedness of our Public Service and where in our view it would be constructive to have better links with local government and we wonder—[Time expired] CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member will resume his seat. The Hon Chris Hipkins.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I thank the member for his contribution and it's an argument that I have considerable sympathy for. Of course I'm not the Minister of Local Government; it's one of the portfolios I've yet to hold. But it is something that I do agree with him. I think the connection between central and local government certainly from a workforce perspective is something that we could do a lot more work in that area.Part 3 of course doesn't grapple with those issues. I think there would be a significant policy process required. There are some significant constitutional issues that that would throw up including the fact that at local government level of course their accountabilities are to the relevant elected representatives at local government. But could we do a better job of joining up the Public Service workforce and the local government workforce? Yes I do believe we could. I think that's a big piece of work. If that's something that the member is keen to pursue in the next term of Parliament whatever the election results are he will certainly have an interested party in me to take part in those discussions because I think they would be well worth having.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): To further that debate though this is the biggest reform of our Public Service legislation in 30 years since the 1988 State Sector Act. Why would we not get on and make that change now if the very purpose of this legislation is to set the framework for our Public Service for the next 20 or 30 years? National members see it as a missed opportunity. That is why we think we would be better to do this legislation properly and make sure we cover that off. I find the response from the Minister of State Services who says Oh but local government has its own election process and the accountability is to those local members."—I remind the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Hipkins that they are creatures of statute and we as a Parliament equally with the powers we give to the local government commissioner and other agencies are perfectly possible to be able to provide by legislation the extension of that public sector role. Now the Minister in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) has proposed 13 changes to this Part and these are part of the 200-page SOP that we are passing under urgency. I think the Minister should answer questions about the nature of those changes that he is making and particularly I'm interested in the changes in Part 3 around the issue of collective employment contracts. Some of those are an interrelation between this Public Service legislation and our Employment Relations Act. It is National's view that we should not use our public sector legislation to try and screw the scrum as one might say either towards individual contracts or collective contracts. We think it's a very important principle that employees should be able to organise themselves. We don't believe in compulsory unionism. We want the people to be able to organise the way in which they contract to be neutral.I do ask the Minister in Part 3 of this bill and the changes that are being proposed in his SOP a very direct question and that is: is there any intent or are there any specifics in respect of promotion under 42(c)? He has proposed amendments around good employer obligations. We've seen amendments that he has made in respect of the roles and responsibilities that chief executives have as employers. A key question within that context is: is it the intention of these changes to maintain a core part of the State sector reforms of 1988 where pre-1988 the Crown was effectively the employer of our thousands of public servants? The 1988 State Sector Act shifted that and made it the chief executive of each particular agency. We see changes here in the functions in clause 51 of this Part 3 around the functions of chief executives. I would like the Minister to go through those 24 changes in this Part and explain why this is effectively the employment part of the bill that affects over tens of thousands of public servants. What is the reason for the changes from his original bill around those issues of the good employer requirements those changes around the responsibilities of the chief executives and is he able to assure the committee that the Government in these changes and in the bill is not attempting to screw the scrum either in favour of individual or my greater worry with the union involvement in the Government screw the scrum towards collective agreements? And can we take reassurance that this legislation is neutral on that and will allow the Public Service to reorganise themselves in terms of wage bargaining on the basis that best works for them without any inherent bias? CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the Minister to respond to the member could I just say that I understand that when you've been following one process for a long time as the member has it's quite difficult to change to a new process. But the House has agreed that the committee stage of debates are no longer where members aim for the target of five minutes but they have a conversation with the Minister. In every contribution the member has made he has aimed for his target of five minutes and put a question in the middle of it. That is not the process any longer that the House has agreed to.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I can respond to the member's contribution. I'm not entirely sure exactly what his question was but with regard to negotiation of collective agreements and the good employer provisions in the bill the Government's intention is to align these provisions with the Employment Relations Act which is what we believe the bill does. It's not our intention to change the employment relationship as defined in the Employment Relations Act. Of course it does carry forward the provisions of the conventions the current processes under the State Sector Act where the departmental chief executives are the employer. That continues.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I'll ask a very direct question then. The Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Hipkins in introducing the bill made exactly the same statements; what the Minister has not answered is that he is making 24 amendments to Part 3. So my simple question to the Minister is: what are those 24 changes? In clause 42 in clause 45 and clause 48 there is a whole series of changes. Something has obviously changed from what was in Part 3 in which all the same assurances—it's just a transfer of the old Act; that it's just reinforcing the provisions of the Employment Relations Act. What are the changes that have been made from the bill in his Supplementary Order Paper 549 and why?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): They are the changes agreed by the Governance and Administration Committee."