Street Maryan: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Street Maryan: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16358. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 In recent times I have come to the House and railed against bits of legislation. I have been saying in particular that this is no way to run a country. The New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill however I am really pleased to speak to because I think it is a good way to run a country. I think the bill will provide for the possibility of independent and contestable advice being given on one of the issues that has dogged us for at least the last decade and a half as we have wrestled with New Zealand’s underperforming productivity. 
This is an area that I have been involved in intimately in my life before I came into Parliament. We were constantly looking at how to make the provision of services in the health sector in that instance more efficient and effective and more productive by the association jointly of employers and employees in the workplace: by the association of professional health practitioners service providers and the managers of the district health boards or the entities that preceded them. 
The issue of productivity has been vexing this country for some time and no Government has been able to crack it in a sustainable way. That is why we are pleased to join with the Government on this bill especially as it has now had its purpose expanded by the work of the Commerce Committee. I commend all members of the select committee including my colleague the chairperson who has put a lot of work into making sure that this legislation hits all the right buttons. This model is a very good one for working through issues that are beyond political tribalism. I can be as tribal as the next person. I know where my politics come from; I know what I believe. But this is one of those things one of those moments where it is entirely possible and not beyond the wit of this Chamber to come up with a system and a process that benefits New Zealand and has the fundamental well-being of New Zealand at heart. 
The fact that the purpose of the New Zealand Productivity Commission was expanded by the select committee is a good thing. Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments just now on my colleague Lianne Dalziel’s amendment to clause 7 it is good that the purpose has been expanded to include the words “having regard to a wide range of communities of interest and population groups in New Zealand society.” I think also that there is merit in my colleague’s amendment that states: “in order to support the overall well-being of New Zealanders through the development of a high wage high skill sustainable economy that delivers benefits on an equitable basis to New Zealanders …”. I think the addition of those words would simply strengthen the legislation and strengthen the purpose of the commission. 
Beyond that given that I understand that the Minister has signalled that that amendment will not succeed I ask that he looks at my colleague Lianne Dalziel’s amendment to clause 12. Here we come to the heart of the matter. Lianne Dalziel has proposed a new subclause (1B) which states: “In setting the terms of reference for an inquiry the referring Ministers”—not the commission I say to the Minister but the referring Ministers—“must first consult with Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions to ensure that the concept of social partnership is embedded in the work of the Productivity Commission.” This is where we get to why this is a particularly good model. If we have peak organisations in this country that equally have a vested interest in productivity why do we not combine their efforts and their common interests in what has been since the 1980s called social partnership? 
The previous Labour Government attempted to embed a modus operandi in our 9 years in Government of social partnership. I commend it to the National Government not because it is something we supported but because it is something that would benefit and create some stability for all New Zealanders. There are some issues where we do not need to have policy swings from one end of the spectrum to the other with any change of Government and this is one of them. We are as concerned about New Zealand’s productivity as the members opposite. I do not doubt their concern about it and I hope that they do not doubt ours. If we are to ensure that the greatest productivity can be extracted for the best possible outcome—that is the well-being of and the equitable distribution of the benefits of productivity across New Zealanders for the sake of everybody’s advancement—then this legislation is a tool that will allow that to happen if we understand that it does embed principles of social partnership. 
The principles of social partnership are very easy. They are simply respectful ones. They involve the recognition that there are communities of interest in New Zealand that deserve to have representation at the highest level. And in that representation they deserve to have their views and their interests spoken about and to be engaged with so that areas of commonality can be found as there were over the 9 years that we were in Government. There were substantial areas of commonality between Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions. Let me give one example of that: skills training. This Government abolished the Skills Strategy and has done very little in that space since it came into office but the Skills Strategy is exactly the area of common ground that one could characterise as the best kind of social partnership. So embedding the notion of social partnership has very practical outcomes. Not only can it be applied in the upskilling of the labour force which is clearly required by all evidence to date and clearly required if New Zealand is to become more productive but it can also provide greater stability for moving forward in this country. 
Productivity does not need to be something that is addressed by tribalism; it can be addressed jointly. If we are mature enough in fact to have a Productivity Commission that will provide contestable and independent advice to Ministers then we are mature enough to embed in our processes and our legislation the notion of social partnership. This is not a quaint left-wing notion; this is about moving modern mixed economies forward and whatever pedigree the notion may have had does not matter now. What matters is that this bill and the amendments that my colleague Lianne Dalziel has put forward really serve to embed the idea of a cooperative social partnership that can benefit in this case the productivity of this country. 
There are extremely practical issues here that would have very practical effects. Upskilling is one of them. Also the promotion of the idea that events and workshops on productivity and educational tools and things of that sort might be paraded around the country in a jointly sponsored effort by the major social partners in this endeavour to increase New Zealand’s productivity is a very sensible suggestion directed towards achieving that end.