Faafoi Kris: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11617. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Thank you very much Mr Chair I think for allowing me the call.Hon Trevor Mallard: The police spokesperson will be back on the beat.KRIS FAAFOI: Yes that is right. Oh well—numbers are dwindling. Thank you very much for the chance to speak to Part 1 of the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill. Every so often John Hayes says something in this Chamber that needs to have some kind of rebuttal and I was watching from my office the very brief contribution he gave to the bill where he did say that this bill is about Better Public Services and about the objective for the Government to try to make sure there are much more efficient and effective public services here in New Zealand. But as Mr Goff has pointed out there are many examples that show—and he also cited an Ernst and Young report that says this—that the Government has failed in that respect.I did want to point out another very apt example of where the Government has failed to deliver better public services which has been highlighted by the Police Association in its latestPolice News magazine in July. This is a Government that says it wants better public services and law and order is certainly one of those places where it trumpets its success. But in the latestPolice News magazine out from the Police Association this week it shows that what the Government is trying to achieve in terms of better public services with our police is failing dismally with the people who are trying to deliver that public service. A survey of nearly 4000 members of the Police Association just three shy of 4000 has shown that only 6 percent of our Police Association members—of 4000 members I will point out again—more likely our front-line police officers think there has been improved efficiency effectiveness or service to the public as part of the Government’s Better Public Services push within the police. So 6 percent of our front-line police staff think that the Government is doing a good job of restructuring and its push for Better Public Services—6 percent. Six out of 100 police staff think that this Government is doing a very good job of the services that they offer to the community to make sure that our communities are safer.In that respect Mr Hayes’ objective—this Government’s objective—in the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill is an absolute failure and that is not just in the eyes of the public but also in the eyes of the people who are delivering the service: our front-line police officers. There are concerns within the ranks in terms of the Government’s objective of making things much more efficient and effective. Of those staff members who were surveyed 61 percent said that staffing shortages were in the top three concerns that they had. That is 61 percent of those 4000 people surveyed who said that staffing shortages within police in our communities is a concern. That is hardly achieving that goal of better public services. Of the 4000 people surveyed in this Police Association survey 45 percent said that resourcing shortages were one of their top three concerns—hardly this Government delivering better public services to our communities.This is a very concerning message from our Police Association because we are talking about our public safety here which is something that this Government over there is full of rhetoric about. But it is clear from the people who are delivering the services that the Government’s claim that it is delivering better public services via our police is not the actual reality. That side of the Chamber is full of plenty of rhetoric but the reality and the message back from those people who are delivering the services is that this Government is doing a very bad job of delivering those better public services when it comes to police. As I said just 6 percent of those 4000 front-line police staff think this Government is doing a good job and is helping them deliver improved efficiency effectiveness and a good service to the public.We also had some reservations around some redundancy provisions within this bill. I must commend some members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who are on this side of the Chamber who did manage to make some very big changes around the redundancy provisions. We did manage to make some amendments to the bill at the select committee consideration. Before we got to the select committee things wereawful but due to the hard work of the Labour members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee we managed to make some amendments to make sure things were much better for those within our public sector who were going to face redundancy.Redundancy is also a very important word in terms of the police restructuring. Last year the Government announced that because of the effect of budget cuts to the police somewhere between 150 and 170 back-office police staff were going to be made redundant. There was very little prospect of them being able to be shifted to different jobs within the police organisation because things were so tight because this Government cut the police budget.I did just want to point to clause 49 within Part 1 relating to a restriction of redundancy payments in certain situations where people might be able to be moved to an alternative position. I just did want to quickly go through each of these situations where someone could not have a redundancy payment offered to them because an alternative position was found. The select committee said on the insertion of sections 61A and 61B that someone who “begins before on or immediately after the date on which the employee’s current employment ends;” is not open to get any redundancy. Someone who is offered “a position with comparable duties and responsibilities to those of the employee’s”—Hon Ruth Dyson: Comparable.KRIS FAAFOI: —comparable or com-parable Ruth Dyson—“current position;” probably would not be able to get redundancy. Someone who “is in substantially the same general locality or a locality within reasonable commuting distance;” would not necessarily be able to get this redundancy. And someone who “is on terms and conditions of employment ... that are no less favourable;” would not be able to get a redundancy payment. I am wondering right now whether those 170-odd people who used to work for the police about a year ago and who no longer work for the police would quite like those provisions within their termination agreements that they have with the police.The changes that are made within this bill do certainly go to the heart of some of the changes that are happening in our police sector at the moment. It is clear from the Police Association survey that the police staff themselves are not happy because of those changes which really restrict their ability to be what the Government wants them to be—more efficient and more effective. And it is plain to see that they think the changes and the budget cuts that the Government is putting them through are not helping them deliver those better public services that Mr Hayes has pointed out. That is quite sad and it is also very risky in terms of our public safety because I think everyone in this House would agree that we do want to have in terms of our police better public services. But when the Government is putting our police force under extreme budget pressure which is leading to front-line staffing shortages and resourcing shortages that could have a very damaging or very dangerous effect in our community if our police are not able to respond to or prevent crime which we would like them to do.If this Government were to be true to what Mr Hayes has pointed out—wanting to be delivering better public services for the safety of all of our communities—maybe it should not act with its intentions to cut the police budget which as I have said has really damaged the confidence of our police staff through their ability to do their job and to be properly resourced for their job. I think subsequently when people read this they will be upset or concerned that our police force is out there trying to do a job trying to be effective and this Government has said it is delivering better public services but the reality and the rhetoric do not match up.We are supporting this bill but we are doing it with reservations and the reservation I pointed out in the police arena is certainly one where this Government should take heed.