Robertson Grant: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16363. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to talk about Part 2 of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill and having given a relatively positive speech on Part 1 I will now do the opposite of my colleague Mr Jones and be a little bit more negative about this part. As we have gone through the debate and Lianne Dalziel has put forward her amendments the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide has responded to them largely in a negative way which has highlighted my concern. We have an agreement in principle that the Productivity Commission is a good thing and we think it will be very useful for the future of New Zealand but its usefulness will be in part about its durability in terms of being able to cope with the changing fortunes of political parties and some of the different agendas pursued by political parties. I think that the changes Lianne Dalziel has brought forward in particular the change to clause 12 are examples of where the durability of the Productivity Commission could be enhanced and that is through the notion of effectively developing the idea of social partnership within the Productivity Commission’s terms of reference. 
On this side of the Chamber we find it quite surprising that the current Government has not chosen to pursue the tripartite work that was going on in the skills area. Obviously the Skills Strategy which Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions have worked on with the Government was a successful strategy. It was an example of social partnership in action skill development and the enhancement of skill. As my colleague Shane Jones has said productivity is about people. One of the key drivers to productivity is enhancing skills and increasing training. Why this Government has chosen not to invest further in the Skills Strategy and indeed in keeping the skills forum going is a great surprise to us. From our point of view this amendment to clause 12 is actually about ensuring that there is some durability and that there is some inclusion and involvement of the key participants—the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand—in terms of in this case workplace productivity and productivity generally in New Zealand. 
It is of great concern to members on this side of the Chamber that the Government is not prepared to pick up this kind of idea. It makes us wonder about the scope of the commission and how it will be used. There is an awful lot of power in the hands of the responsible Ministers. Of course that is as it should be. Parliament is sovereign and Ministers of the executive come to us and we hold them to account. Elected representatives should be controlling the direction of this work. But we want the commission to be able to work as broadly and as inclusively as it can and we want the commission to be able to challenge the Government and to challenge all the ideas and concepts that any Government is putting forward and in particular the Government of the day. So it is disappointing from our point of view that there has not been a willingness in the Government to pick up the amendment to clause 12. But perhaps we should not be surprised. We should not be surprised because the Government has largely ignored things in the skills area where that social partnership programme was working really very well indeed. 
Of course there have been other issues around skill development—the cuts in adult and community education for instance and the restriction on tertiary education places. None of that bodes especially well for a commitment to the core element of productivity which is that of raising skills. But the opportunity is here for the Government to pick up Lianne Dalziel’s amendment and get Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions on board. I do not buy Sam Lotu-Iiga’s argument that somehow or the other this could be difficult because the names might change or something like that. We change things all the time in law when that takes place. This is about embedding social partnership in the Productivity Commission and it is very disappointing that the Government has chosen not to pick that up. 
I want to go back from clause 12 to the whole question of the membership of the commission in clause 10 which has been alluded to by a number of members. I draw on the example of the Treasury board that was recently put in place by Secretary to the Treasury John Whitehead no doubt talking with the Minister of Finance Bill English. There was a great palaver about how this would be an excellent example of how Treasury would be able to reflect the community’s interests and those affected by the fiscal policies and the overall policy framework that Treasury is responsible for. The names of those on the Treasury board came out and it was just the usual suspects. It was the usual board members the professional board members and we had concerns about one of them in particular and that person’s links with the broader National Party. Generally the people who were appointed represented a very narrow range of people. They certainly did not represent the broader community. 
Our concern when we look at clause 10 on the membership of the commission as others have said is that Mr Sherwin’s early appointment does not bode well. He reflects a particular ideological mindset but more than anything else I think he represents a narrow idea of what this commission could do. As with the Treasury board and the commission we should be thinking broadly. I remember thinking when the Treasury board was being appointed “What about appointing someone like Diane Robertson the Auckland City Missioner?”. What about saying that we actually care about the impact of Treasury’s policies on real people as Shane Jones said—not the big end of town; the other end of town? I really would encourage the Minister as we go forward in this process to find a way of getting a commission that is reflective of the very broad nature of productivity that we have been talking about tonight. Again it does not bode well that the question of social partnership is dismissed so quickly because I am quite sure that when we look at the commission’s membership it will be a concern. That has been a concern for a number of members of the Labour caucus. We support the idea in principle but we have concerns about the way it will be implemented and certainly Mr Sherwin’s appointment is a very bad start in that regard. We want to make sure as the commission is appointed in full that it does not fall into that trap. 
I will refer in my remaining time to the other amendments that Lianne Dalziel has put forward particularly on the purpose of the commission. She is correct to identify the area of practical activities and I think that the commission could usefully take that up. There has been some very good work done by the partnership resource centre out of the Department of Labour in the last few years. It was an initiative set up by the fifth Labour Government and has drawn together the skills of people from the union movement and from the private sector around how to improve workplace productivity. 
Jonathan Young 
: There’s nothing on the website though. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I will have to have a look at that. I can certainly introduce Mr Young to some of the people who have been involved in it. There are some private sector outfits. I know that Air New Zealand and one or two others have been involved and have really enjoyed their links with the partnership resource centre. Let us broaden out this definition so that the practical activities which are like pilot projects that the partnership resource centre undertakes around productivity could actually be part of the commission’s work. I think Lianne Dalziel is on to the right point there and—again—with the amendment that comes in under clause 9 on productivity projects. This is where the commission could have a more detailed mandate and a more detailed and practical ability to take on those projects. I think it is unfortunate that the Minister has ruled out accepting those amendments because I think they broaden out the definition. Yes we absolutely want research and obviously we want the inquiries done but we need to start moving a little beyond those to some practical projects that could be taken up. 
To conclude my contribution at this time on Part 2 I say that it contains some very good points but there are a number of clauses that could be enhanced. If we do not get this right then the Productivity Commission runs the risk of being seen as pursuing a particular agenda. I hope it is not Mr Sherwin’s old agenda—it should not be because we all believe that this is a good idea. We need to give the framework to ensure that the Productivity Commission can be durable across Governments and has the ability to undertake practical work in developing social partnerships. That is missing from Part 2 at the moment and that disappoints me because in general this is a very very good idea.