Hide Rodney: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: 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 RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I will respond to those amendments proposed by the member. I thank the Hon Lianne Dalziel for her work as a Minister and her commitment to improving New Zealand’s productivity and also her work as the chair of the Commerce Committee and the contribution that she made there. I pick up first of all her proposed amendment to clause 7. The member will appreciate that the purpose clause is couched very broadly to enable the Productivity Commission to conduct inquiries and research into any productivity-related matters that will improve the welfare of New Zealand. It encompasses everything that the member’s proposed amendment includes. The proposed amendment is just another way of skinning the same cat; it does not actually change anything and therefore the Government will not be agreeing to that. 
Let me now deal with the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s suggested changes to clause 9(1) which relate to the functions of the commission. The first of these subclauses would appear to give the Productivity Commission new hands-on support for workplace productivity improvement projects. That would fundamentally change the character of the Productivity Commission which is to provide independent analysis and advice on productivity-related matters. I should also note that this is specifically not a function of the Australian Productivity Commission. It would be a new and novel approach. Proposed paragraphs (e) (f) and (g) of clause 9(1) would appear to specify activities that the Productivity Commission is already able to undertake through existing clause 9(1)(b)(ii) which is to promote public understanding of productivity-related matters. The Government does not see any need to provide this level of specification in the bill. 
In respect of the proposed amendment to clause 12 the bill enables the Productivity Commission to consult widely. Clause 13(1A)(b) states that the commission may “consult with any persons bodies organisations and agencies it considers necessary to ensure that a wide range of views is available to the Commission to assist it in preparing its reports.” The expectation is that as an independent body it will identify those who are likely to have a particular expertise or contribution that may assist it in relation to specific inquiries referred to it. Identifying two specific bodies in the bill such as this proposed amendment would do is not consistent with the philosophy of widespread consultation and engagement. 
In relation to proposed subclause (4) of clause 12 the Productivity Commission model is predicated on the commission having the requisite expertise to make a call on the appropriate methods and the models for its inquiries and the approach that it takes will be amply tested through consultation that the commission may undertake including through consulting on draft reports. This is an aspect of the bill that was strengthened by the select committee for which I do thank the honourable member. I thank her very much for the contribution.