Wong Pansy: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Wong Pansy: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6319] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: I am really wondering who is responsible for writing these schedules. Let me share this with the public: we are getting very worried about the types of thoughts that are going into the schedules. Just now my colleague Mr John Carter raised the question of clause 10 “Accountability for collective board duties” in schedule 1. He raised a valid point. Clause 10(2) states: “If a board does not comply with any of its collective duties all or any of the members may be removed from office.” But the next subclause subclause (3) states that a member may not have to be removed if: “(a) he or she did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the duty was to be or was being breached;”. 
That all sounds very generous except for the provisions relating to the members of the board in clause 8 “Duty to act with reasonable care diligence and skill” in the same schedule. The public was led to believe that some of the brightest members of the public with commercial skills and qualifications etc. will be appointed to the board. Apparently they can be excused if they breach one of the duties of collective responsibility implying that some of the board members may not actually know what the requirements and duties may be. The Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs should take a call to explain to us what sorts of members the Labour Party will appoint apart from failed Labour candidates. Any competent professionals appointed to the board should be expected to know what lies within the collective responsibility. 
I get really confused and concerned to see in clause 12 “Court actions requiring or restraining board or members” of schedule 1 how prescriptive the Labour Government has become. Subclause (1) states: “The Minister or a member may apply to a court for an order—” but the thing that really concerns me is that the Government is starting to dictate to the court what it can do. Subclause (2) states: “The court may make an order on the application subject to the following rules: (a) an order may be made only if the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so;”. The Minister in the chair should take a call. When has a judge of a court made an order when it is not just and equitable to do so? I get very concerned that the Government is writing into the schedules of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill that a judge may not make an order unless the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable. It is quite tarnishing to the reputation of our judges and courts that in effect this Labour Government finds it necessary to dictate to them that they should not make any order on application unless that is equitable and just. That is a very serious issue. 
The Minister really needs to take a call and explain to us whether a judge or a court has earned her distrust or what the special reasons are that exist that this Government finds it necessary to dictate to the judge or the court that they not make any order unless it is just and equitable. In New Zealand the public—and myself—are led to have belief and confidence that our judges and courts always act in a manner that is just and equitable. It is very strange that the schedules of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill should have to spell that out in detail. It seems that the culture and language that is flowing through this whole schedule is spelling out chapter and verse how members of the board should behave how they should share. It leads one to wonder what happened to confidence.