Dalziel Lianne: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16365. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to go back to the Minister’s comments when he ruled out the changes to clause 12(1B) that I am promoting because I think he has misunderstood what the clause was. He went on to refer to clause 13 of the bill which talks about who the Productivity Commission consults with. The reason I have moved clause 12(1B) is to make sure that it is the referring Ministers who consult with Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions when they are setting the terms of reference for an inquiry. There is a very important reason for this and it goes to the regulatory impact statement which of course I have downloaded off the website now that it is no longer available in the bill as introduced. It says this about the consultation that was done on this bill: “Discussions were held with a small number of New Zealand senior public servants current and past politicians and informed commentators from consultancies and academia. Discussions were also held with the APC VCEC and Australian Treasury.” 
Grant Robertson 
: So that’s John Whitehead Don Brash and Michelle Boag. That’s it. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Is that not a really good start to social partnership! That is the reason I want the concept of social partnership embedded in the setting of the terms of reference. Of course the Productivity Commission will talk to the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand—that is a given. Everyone knows that it will do that. I am not seeking for any parameters to be put on who the Productivity Commission consults with. It will be putting out discussion documents and hearing submissions. It will then put out a draft report as the Australian commission does it will hear further submissions on that and it will be ultimately reporting to the Minister after in-depth consideration and inquiry into these matters. 
If the social partners and if our trade union movement those who represent the workforce and Business New Zealand which represents those who run our businesses are not somehow embedded in the very proposals for the terms of reference for the inquiry then what are we going to get out of it? That is what concerns me. The consultation on this legislation has not been as inclusive as it should have been. In fact we are told in the regulatory impact statement that the consultation confirmed the Australian experience—which is not surprising since more Australians than New Zealanders were consulted—and it was judged that further consultation in New Zealand would quickly reach diminishing returns. I think that is a little bit of an insult given the huge contribution that both the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand made to productivity development in the entire period that we were in Government. For 9 years they were regarded as partners that sat at the table and were engaged in ongoing consultations with a range of Ministers. I was one of the Ministers they were engaged in discussions with. I think it is very unfortunate that the Minister dismisses the amendment on the basis of the commission’s procedures that have nothing to do with the clause that I am seeking to amend. 
The other thing I would really like the Minister to do is talk about the contributions from the different Government agencies that have been selected for contributing to the costs of setting up the commission and its ongoing running. When one looks at the level of contribution the largest contribution comes from Treasury which is not surprising; the Ministry of Economic Development which is not surprising; and the Department of Labour. Why is the Department of Labour the other large contributor? Because workplace productivity is one of the major drivers of productivity. It is not the only one and it is not supposed to be the only focus. But even the contributing ministries make it absolutely clear that the Government itself sees workplace productivity—I mean it is micro and macro but the micro is the workplace and the Government itself has said that this is one of the three top contributors from departmental budgets for the setting up of the commission and its ongoing running costs; it is so obvious that the Government itself sees workplace productivity as a key driver to our productivity gains over time. So why on earth would the social partners not be included as part of the setting of the terms of reference?