Simpson Scott; Seymour DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well thank you.Hon Grant Robertson: You're on your own now Scott.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Oh I don't know about that the Hon Grant Robertson. I think that we are in good company as we debate Part 1 of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill.I know that the Minister in the chair will be keen to explain—in some detail I hope—what the purposes listed in clause 3 of Part 1 are actually intended to do. Because we've heard during the debate on the first and second readings of this legislation a whole range of good reasons from this side of the House about the ineffectiveness of the Productivity Commission. So I'm wondering if the Minister in the chair can please enlighten the committee of the whole House as to why in his view he thinks it's important that the purposes of the bill listed in paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and (d) are important—and maybe for the benefit and the enlightenment of members opposite. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the member for his question but sorry I didn't quite hear the exact clause he was referring to. I wonder if he could just repeat himself.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As I understand it we're on Part 1 and it's clause 3 the purposes. And particularly I'm interested in paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and (d). For the benefit of the Minister in the chair paragraph (a) reads: repeal the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act 2010;"; (b) says "disestablish the New Zealand Productivity Commission;"; and (c) says "provide for the consequences of that disestablishment;"; and (d) says "make consequential amendments to other Acts." So this is a wide-ranging poise of questions there for the Minister in the chair.Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Well thank you very much Madam Chair. And I thank the member for his question. Now fully clarified it actually sounded better and clearer the second time. Clause 3 sets out the purposes of the bill. And it says that the purposes of the Act are actually four—I think he asked about three but I may give him a bonus—are to repeal the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act. And that is a piece of legislation that brought into force the Productivity Commission—a Crown entity which must be established by legislation as the year would suggest back in 2010. And that piece of legislation would remain on the statute book even as the Productivity Commission was shut down. So we want to remove what would otherwise be I guess a kind of zombie piece of legislation without a purpose. So that for the member's benefit is the purpose of clause 3(a).Clause 3(b) says "disestablish the New Zealand Productivity Commission;". Well that is certainly the core objective of this legislation tonight. In turn that will have I guess a kind of win-win in that we preserve all of the great works that have been done by the Productivity Commission—even though as members have noted they haven't always been followed as well as they might—and yet also free up around $6 million per year of funding that can be used for better—ironically—more productive purposes. Clause 3(c) describes how the legislation has a purpose of providing for some of the consequences of the disestablishment. No doubt we will get to some fulsome discussion of some of those consequences.Hon Grant Robertson: Oh I hope!Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I hear Grant Robertson saying that he hopes that will happen. For example the Crown Entities Act and the Ombudsman Act both have references to the Productivity Commission for the purpose of scrutiny under the Official Information Act and so on. That obviously would be a nonsense if the commission was to no longer exist and yet the Ombudsman and the Official Information Act were to be charged with scrutinising something non-existent. So that would be an example—and there are others—of consequences of the disestablishment of the commission which must be dealt with.And paragraph (d) to "make consequential amendments to other Acts." So you can see that this is quite a carefully drafted bill that carries out the many details that need to be attended to in order that something like the Productivity Commission can be ended.Hon Grant Robertson: Waste of time. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I hope that there'll be more searching questions about the details of this legislation for Mr Robertson's benefit exactly as the committee of the whole House stage is supposed to be used."