Connell Brian: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Connell Brian: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6320] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: Thank you for the opportunity to make another contribution to this debate. I want to focus the Committee’s attention on schedule 1. In particular I want to look at clause 2 “Functions must be performed efficiently effectively and consistently with spirit of service to public”. I was wondering whether the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs could take a call and enlighten me as to what that means because I have no idea what “spirit of service to public” actually means. How will one measure it? 
Pansy Wong 
: Giving money to the Warehouse. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That might be the measure? What does success look like? The Minister could take a call and tell me that. More important who determines it? Who determines whether someone is acting in the spirit of service to the public and how is it evaluated? Who writes this stuff? It is overly prescriptive. 
Let us look at clause 3 of schedule 1 “Operation must be in financially responsible manner” which states: “The board must ensure that NZTE operates in a financially responsible manner and for this purpose that it prudently manages its assets and liabilities.” I say to members of this Committee and to the Minister that we have not really made a good start. I want to know what other contingent liabilities are on the books. What other Mr McKays are hiding in the balance sheet? Already we have paid out half a million dollars to Mr McKay. 
Edwin Perry 
: How much? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Half a million dollars. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Or somewhat less than that. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Somewhat less than that was it? I will take bids. How will the others be disclosed? Maybe the Minister could take a call and explain that as well. 
When one reads the schedules it is clear that they are overly prescriptive. Members of the Committee might have heard the expression there is no point in having a dog and barking too which is why I support my colleague Judith Collins’ amendments which have now been put by my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall. Surely we could have something that simply said: “Members of the board should act commercially in accordance with their judicial responsibilities.” That would streamline the process and in my view it would make this type of legislation efficient and enforceable. 
I will now look at clause 6 “Duty to act with honesty and integrity” and clause 7 “Duty to act in good faith and not at expense of entity’s interests”. Who else would one employ? Would one employ people who were not going to do that? Why would one have to write that type of garbage into legislation? Why not simply employ people who will act within their judicial responsibilities? Again I ask how is that to be enforced? If they do not act with honesty and integrity would one employ them in the first place? How do other companies deal with people who do not act with honesty and integrity? It is certainly not enshrined in law. 
The other clause in schedule 1 that I will look at is clause 10 “Accountability for collective board duties” and in particular subclause (2) which reads: “If a board does not comply with any of its collective duties all or any of the members may be removed from office.” What a sham. Is this entity going to be managed at the Minister’s whim? When one thinks about it it is hardly independent. Members are too scared to say to the Minister: “We think you’ve got it wrong; you’re giving us poor direction.” because if they do collectively say that they will be out of a job. How are we going to attract board members to Crown entities who have integrity the courage of their convictions and the experience the boards desperately need? They would simply say to the Minister: “Take a hike!”.