Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm very pleased to follow on from the contribution from the member opposite Ginny Andersen because she does touch on an issue which was of great interest to the Governance and Administration Committee and that was around the submission of the Institute of Directors. It was an in-depth submission but they showed very strongly held beliefs about the role of a board and a board of directors and their almost singular role one could argue in the appointment of a CEO.The Institute of Directors made some really interesting points. It has been said before so I won't labour this point but in their view appointing a CEO is one of if not the most important functions of a board and the important functions of the board include setting the terms and conditions of employment including remuneration. I do remember from their submission as I imagine all of us did that they made that point on a number of occasions and in a number of different ways because we were interested in that view and questioned them. But they were very firmly of the view of the fact that in section 117(2A) in clause 4 the board must obtain the written consent of the State Services Commissioner before—(a) finalising the terms and conditions; or (b) amending any or all of the terms and conditions once they have been finalised."—in a way it diminished and took away some of that autonomy that boards have in the appointment of directors of Crown entities.From our point of view from the National point of view we want the best people available to fill the role of chief executive in Crown entities which themselves have large budgets a lot of responsibility sometimes a high degree of public service and public accountability. We would like to think that choosing people to be those chief executives can be done in a way that really is enabling—unfettered if you like—boards to go about choosing that candidate for the role. So while the Institute of Directors does not support the proposed change we do having noted on the way through some real concerns that the provision that is being inserted into this bill will have an impact not only on the ability of boards as they go about making appointments to Crown entities but also perhaps on the other side of the ledger the type of person who is going to be prepared to put their name forward for those roles. The last thing that we need in New Zealand in the Public Service and on statutory boards are people who are considering putting their names forward for a role as chief executive being dissuaded from doing that by the requirement and fettering that section 117(2A) in clause 4 displays in saying that "the board must obtain the written consent of the State Services Commissioner". The member who spoke previously also traversed section 117(2AA) in clause 4 which outlined the terms and conditions of the appointment of a chief executive and those five terms that the State Services Commissioner must have regard to. Yes they're there for all of us to see and no doubt my colleagues will traverse them because they are quite substantive. She did note "among any other relevant factors" but that does not take away in any way the provision in section 117(2A) in clause 4 where written consent for an appointment of a chief executive must be given. Madam Chair I am interested in—[Time expired]"