Jones Shane: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Shane: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16361. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. It actually is necessary to inject a wee bit more of a positive tone into this debate after that rather impoverished contribution from the member currently representing Maungakiekie. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The soon-to-be former MP. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Well Maungakiekie is a proud tangata whenua name blighted at the moment by—but let me come back to the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill. I would like to pick up one of three things that the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide has said. A key part of the Minister’s narrative has been the reduction of red tape and unblocking the bureaucratic imbroglios that stop firms and investors from achieving the sorts of outcomes that he would like to see. I acknowledge that that is the rhetoric and the political narrative that this Minister has. But to do that it is necessary to focus in a very very sharp way on what some of the problems are and what some of the snarl-ups are. 
How the commission develops its procedures will depend on whom the Minister the Government and the Crown appoint. We are starting with a rather dismal view not really directed in a personal way at the character who is going to be the initial leader of the organisation as we know that he will not become separated or dislocated from this ideological baggage. We know that to be a fact but we are going to have to deal with that burden. But if we are going to consult in terms of clause 13(1A)(b) “consult with any persons bodies organisations …” I think it would be good if the Minister and his colleagues dedicated some attention to finding people who can actually liaise with a wide array of organisations. 
I have in mind here our Maori organisations because this is a Government that is only too happy to parade its rhetoric up and down the country about how the emerging Maori economy represents something of a positive platform to grow the overall economy. That will happen when they are no longer as disengaged as they have become under this Government and its lacklustre partners in the Maori Party. It is going to increase the level of importance that we have the right woman or man capable of building bridges into that area because there are some significant institutional problems there not the least of which has to do with the land tenure system with access to capital and with the importance or forming the right partnerships. 
It seems that the Minister of Agriculture David Carter has presided over the allocation of grants and capital into the agricultural sector in a wretched way. According to my colleague from the West Coast Damien O’Connor it almost looks as if vested interests are being—yet again—rewarded. It is important that the Productivity Commission has people who can turn their attention towards the sector. Without the introduction of science-based capital innovation and clever research that is designed to meet the specific distinctive institutional problems in that small segment of our economy I think the commission could turn into something too ideologically narrow or too full of puffery. 
One of the redeeming features of the terms of reference concerns the commission working jointly with other agencies including overseas agencies. I imagine that is an opportunity for the Productivity Commission to focus on what is happening in Australia. We already have enough of our Kiwis in Australia enriching the Australian economy. We need to get the right blend of people on the Productivity Commission and emulate in our economic thinking what Australia has been able to do. The Australians do not deprecate or marginalise representatives from the labour movement but integrate their perspectives into a broad plan to build the people as they build the economy. The member from Maungakiekie is quite entitled to speak against the very sensible amendment from my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel the chair of the Commerce Committee but what he reflects is a very parched view about the underlying accord that we think is very very important. 
Hon Member 
: Bleached and parched. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Yes the word parched does strike me at this hour of the night but it is still Thursday—it is still Thursday etc. I think I might need it at about 5 to 12 actually. Anyhow underlying what the member from Maungakiekie was saying was the view that there cannot be meshing together of the perspectives of those who are in control of capital and the perspectives of those who are proxies for the voices of labour—the voices of people. Yes those people who are making investment decisions have to bear in mind the rights of shareholders. We have learnt about and seen a less atomistic approach being taken in Australia. It is less divisive than what we are seeing from our colleagues on the other side of the House. 
So in that sense when the commission may be working jointly with other agencies including overseas agencies concerned with improving productivity it will come down again to who and how many people—people who are not captives or cheerleaders for that narrow range of vested interests who do not want to see a Productivity Commission—challenge the growing gap of haves and have-nots in New Zealand. In that sense when there is a dismissal and a jettisoning by our colleagues over there of that very useful contribution made in the form of an amendment then we have every right to be concerned. 
The commission’s work will actually not deliver any serious change unless the Government or the politicians of the day have faith and confidence in the quality of their work. Although Mr Wilkinson and Don Brash are hewn out of similar ideological matter as represented on the other side of the House they have been tossed aside. So we can see that National is prepared to throw even its own to the sharks. It reminds me of a great white shark coming out of the sea where there is a placid seal moving on the top of the ocean. Out comes the great white shark and snaps open its jaws and down its gullet goes the seal. That is what happens to people such as Helen Kelly who bring forward suggestions and contributions. I think she would be a fantastic contributor in that organisation. It is evident that those prospects are very narrow because personal agendas are likely to intrude in terms of the kinds of characteristics a person will be expected to show and also in relation to the areas of concern to productivity that will be focused on. That is a matter of some concern to us. 
I want to come back to what I said before which is that the commission has the ability to grow beyond three or four members in the sense of appointing associate commissioners. I hope that those discrete projects flow from what firms population groups and communities of interest are telling the commission and that they do not flow from the brainwaves of the current Minister or some of his colleagues. [ 
Interruption 
] I want to be positive. I feel that I will be able to make a better contribution with a negative connotation at 1 minute to 12. I think I will reserve it until 1 minute to 12—on Thursday.