Clendon David: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Clendon David: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15792] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. Before I speak on the matter at hand I would like to add the Greens’ acknowledgment of the dreadful news we had this afternoon from the West Coast and to offer our manaaki our aroha to those most closely affected. My colleague Kevin Hague is returning to his home on the Coast as quickly as he may. We will make proper acknowledgment of that matter with the rest of the House tomorrow afternoon. 
The business of the evening is to make some commentary on the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill. Certainly it is a better bill that has come from the Commerce Committee than what went to it. That is a credit to the committee I think and indeed to some of the submitters. Some of the obvious flaws of the original bill have been remedied some of the gaps filled and some of the most undesirable parts removed. 
The genesis of this bill came from the ACT Party as a support party to the Government. That was revealed in the Minister of Local Government’s first speech on this bill when he noted that it was part of the confidence and supply agreement with the National Government. I fear that the genesis is perhaps reflected in the aspects of the bill that the Greens will continue to not support through its further stages. 
To refer to some of the improvements to the bill it has been noted that the words added to clause 7: “… having regard to a wide range of communities of interest and population groups in New Zealand society.” have broadened the scope of the bill and the capacity of the Productivity Commission which will be established by this bill to do its work and to give proper consideration whereas in the original drafting of the bill it was silent on that. It was very much an overly narrow regulatory approach and it would have led to little more than a witch hunt in the Public Service and a very aggressive assault indeed on the private sector. 
It is appropriate and a distinct improvement that the work programme of the commission will be less determined by the Minister and that the Minister will be obliged to consult with the commission about terms of reference. In the original drafting of the bill those things were very much in the Minister’s control. That would not be a desirable thing. The requirement to consult between the Minister and the commission will certainly aid or at least add a little to the independence of the commission and its tasks. 
I reiterate the statement made by the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel about the value of the commission being able to publish draft reports because then it will be possible to see what the commission genuinely thinks—its work processes and its thought processes—before the final report comes out. Any substantial changes between a draft and a final report would give scope for public or political questioning of who or what influenced any dramatic changes. We have already seen that with boards of inquiry such as the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. The report that was produced by that royal commission was cast aside and we have a very inferior outcome. If this was to occur with the commission at least we would have a sense of what the commission first thought or where it went. 
The point has been made that the chair designate of this commission-to-be has already been appointed. Frankly the Greens see that as rather an abuse of the parliamentary process. Perhaps I should say that it appears to be treating Parliament with some disdain to appoint the head of an organisation when the very existence nature function and roles of that organisation are still being discussed in a select committee before the bill has even come back to the House for its second reading Committee stage and third reading. In that there is no explicit or implied criticism of the gentleman chosen to lead the commission. I do not know the fellow. It must be said that his CV is very impressive and he may well be an ideal choice but it seems remarkable that such an appointment would be made in advance of the proper parliamentary process being completed. 
There has been much made of the fact that this commission is modelled—quite closely some would say—on the Australian Productivity Commission. Indeed there are references and similarities but there are also some significant differences both in the model in the legislation and in the context within which this commission will work. 
It is noted that the New Zealand Productivity Commission will be able to on its own initiative undertake and publish research about productivity matters to develop its institutional knowledge support its inquiry and promote public understanding of those issues. That is well and good and it is appropriate that such a body should be able to do independent work but I seriously doubt whether this commission will have the capacity or the wherewithal to do any such work. We are told it will have a budget of some $5 million a year. That is not a significant sum of money given that the Auckland inquiry consumed some $3 million to make admittedly quite a large investigation. Clearly the requirements are that the first task or tasks of the commission will be to fulfil the roles or tasks given to it by the Minister. It will have very little time capacity or resources to do independent work unlike its Australian equivalent which works on a much larger stage with a much larger budget available to it and where there can be some genuine self-initiated work done. 
We believe it is rather peculiar that within this bill there is no definition offered of what productivity is or what it means in this context. That is quite unusual given that the word “productivity” even in the context in which this commission will work is open to a significant range and diversity of definition or interpretation. It seems strange that this legislation contains no definition nor does it contain a clear set of directions as to what the commission ought to do or what its broader objectives ought to be. Again this is a distinct contrast to the Australian example. The Australian legislation says that the commission must strive to improve the productivity and economic performance of the economy to reduce unnecessary regulation and that it ought to encourage the development of efficient and competitive Australian industry. 
We note there is very little focus on industry in this bill. The words “workforce” or “workplace” do not appear as has been noted by a couple of the submitters—I will return to that point. The Australian commission is charged with facilitating adjustment to structural change which some would see as some way from a definition or a reflection of a focus on productivity. In short this legislation does not replicate the Australian model sufficiently to give us any hope or confidence that it will replicate the undoubted success of the Australian commission. 
The Council of Trade Unions and the Public Service Association both made very substantive useful and helpful submissions on this bill. Both regretted that within it there was no focus on the workplace and no intention obvious that the workforce or those bodies representing the workforce should be a player in the commission. Lifting productivity as the Public Service Association pointed out is clearly not simply a matter for the private sector given that the Crown expenses account for about 35 percent of the economy. Public as well as private issues are at stake here. 
What we could more usefully do than this very narrowly focused poorly resourced commission is follow the example of the UK and look more towards the development and establishment of a Sustainable Development Commission as the UK has done with significant success. In its short life that commission has sought to fulfil its goals of living within environmental limits achieving a sustainable economy using sound science responsibly and promoting good governance. It has already identified savings of many hundreds of millions of dollars for the Government. That would be a model that the Green Party could support. Kia ora koutou.