Lotu-Iiga Sam: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lotu-Iiga Sam: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16360. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I will take a short call on Part 2 of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill and echo the comments that have already been made about the way our Commerce Committee has worked on this particular bill. There was a lot of agreement as to the direction of productivity in this country—one of the major issues certainly that our country faces going into the future. 
I will refer specifically to the amendments from the member Lianne Dalziel. Although I agree with most of the comments of the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide I must say that Lianne Dalziel’s amendment to clause 7 would fundamentally change that purpose clause. The amendment adds the words “the development of a high wage high skill sustainable economy that delivers benefits on an equitable basis to New Zealanders”. I contend that we cannot have that type of provision because she is suggesting by this amendment a guaranteed equality of outcome. I suppose that one of the fundamental differences between members on that side of the Chamber and those on this side is that this is not about guaranteeing equality of outcomes; it is about guaranteeing equality of opportunities. There is no way that we can guarantee that all the benefits derived from certain productivity advances will deliver benefits across the board so I think that that amendment goes too far. 
We made an amendment to clause 7 in order to have regard to “a wide range of communities of interest and population groups …”; I think that that was sufficient to suggest that the commission did not take on board one particular model of productivity. I thought we worked well on that clause. I do not think that the additions to the clause add anything; I think they actually detract from that purpose clause. 
I move to clause 9(1). As the Minister has already said some of the member’s suggestions for new paragraphs (e) (f) and (g) of clause 9(1) can actually happen regardless of whether they are inserted in a clause. I do not think it is appropriate to insert those specific provisions in the clause because the role of the commission is not to run workshops. I do not believe that the commission will have the resources for those types of operational matters. If we go back to the first principles of the bill we see that the role of the commission will be to promote research do the research do the analytical work work according to the terms of reference and produce work that will advance productivity and policy-making both in the private and public sectors so that amendment would not be helpful to that. 
Finally the amendment that would insert new clause 12(1B) requires Ministers to “consult with Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions …”. Again there is specificity in the clause but what happens if the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions no longer exists? What happens if Business New Zealand no longer exists? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That will always exist; don’t worry! 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: That is the member’s contention but I think that if we start demanding or at least requiring in a clause that a Minister consults directly with certain organisations it makes that clause unworkable. We should think again about whether we should demand a social partnership. That is not to say that we disagree with a social partnership; I think that that is important. But to require it in legislation specifically I think is going too far. 
We do not agree with these amendments. We think the bill as it came out of the select committee was a good bill and we look forward in the third reading to speaking about our bill.