Wong Pansy: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17921] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven really must take a call on this part. I am very worried about clause 222 “Existing members exempt from qualification requirements” as it has very serious implications. It states: “Every member of a statutory entity or Crown entity company or a Crown entity subsidiary in office at the commencement of this section may continue in office for the remainder of his or her current term of office …” and be exempted from the requirements specified in clauses 72 and 132 which are very obvious reasons for disqualification. Under clause 72 a person cannot be appointed to a board if he or she is an undischarged bankrupt “a person who is prohibited from being a director or promoter of or being concerned or taking part in the management of a company …” “a person who is subject to a property order …” “a person in respect of whom a personal order has been made … that reflects adversely on the person’s—(i) competence to manage his or her own affairs …” “a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more” or—I am not sure for what reason—a member of Parliament. Clause 132 “Criteria for appointments by shareholding Minister” states that a shareholding Minister may appoint a person who in the Minister’s opinion: “has the appropriate knowledge skills and experience to ensure the sound management of the Crown entity company …” will be carried out. 
I think the Minister should take a call on this. Why should the existing board members under this provision continue their terms and be exempt from these very basic and obvious requirements? Is the Minister trying to tell the public that some existing members of the boards of these statutory entities and Crown entities etc. would be barred from holding that office because they have had a prison sentence of 2 years or are not competent to manage their affairs? I hope that the Minister instead of laughing smiling and talking away will take a call and state categorically that this provision is totally unnecessary in terms of exempting those members from clauses 72 and 132. All it does is send a message to the public that some existing board members may be incompetent or bankrupts or alternatively that the Minister is trying to protect some existing board members who should be disqualified. It is quite a concern to us on this side of the Chamber that such people may be appointed to a board. We have questioned the appointment of the Labour Party president Mike Williams to eight Crown entities but we hope he has not infringed any of those obvious requirements that exclude people from being board members. 
The other thing I want to draw to members’ attention is clause 226 “Continuation of existing board committees”. I wonder whether the Minister is lamenting that the Government is missing an opportunity to remove this clause—to support National’s call for it not to proceed. Changing this clause to say that the Minister may choose to discontinue existing board committees may help the Minister of Broadcasting out of a very tight situation. The Minister once again finds himself helpless under the current requirements. He told Parliament that he could not do anything to the TVNZ board even though the Government was not very happy with the continuation of the culture of extravagance in that entity. I think the Minister should take a call and answer my two questions.