Jones Shane: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Shane: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16372. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. I preface this 10-minute speech by reminding members on the other side of the House and in particular Tau Henare of a famous proverb from where we both hail from: “Small though the dogfish may be large is its volume and wake inversely related to the multitudes”. 
I speak on behalf of the 20 members. I alert the House and those New Zealanders who were watching the previous speaker Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga that his seat is Maungakiekie. To Ngapuhi “kiekie” is the cry of the morepork. A certain sort of sleepy tired jaded character is reflected in the faces of our fellow colleagues on the other side of the House. 
I see Simon Power sitting there. We know that shortly he will be looking at productivity. I have no doubt that while he is away he will contemplate what can be done to improve Gerry Brownlee’s conception of productivity. What can be done to improve his numeracy in terms of how to count days during the months in the entire year’s calendar so that we do not have this pile-up at the end of the year which is something of an outrage in the context of productivity? 
An important part of productivity which this bill in its far-ranging writ will have the chance to study is the impact on our constitution and its relationship with the economy. This evening the constitution has been upheld as a consequence of members from that side of the House remaining here in Te Upoko o Te Ika Wellington right up to 10 or 20 past 9. I am sure that when future statisticians look at metrics for defining how extensive productivity has been tonight— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Just till the plane’s gone. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Ha ha! Before I finish talking about the connection between the constitution and productivity I will look at productivity statistics in the airline industry and whether there is scope for the airline industry to delay the departure of flights out of the head of the fish to the tail of the fish. I wonder whether the industry will build into its cost measures a reward for the members on that side of the House who are unwilling to challenge the foolishness of their Leader of the House and have along with a number of us enjoyed a Saturday right into the wee hours since Thursday. That Thursday will always be memorialised by the connection between my relation Tau Henare and a banana. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Ha ha! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I want it noted that that laugh is not an accurate reflection on the glum expression from the other side of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well I think it’s a question of where he put the banana. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: No after my year I will not go in that direction. 
Simon Power just stood up. I want the House to know about Simon Power’s township of Marton. Whenever he misbehaves we will give the Maori name for his township which is Tutaenui and let him know that a lot of his korero and a lot of his behaviour may actually be informed by the Maori name for that township. 
Anyhow I come back to some of the reasons why this side of the House will vote for the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill. We want Rodney Hide to take this bill forward and make a success of it because no one on that side of the House is actually generating a fresh set of ideas that will create jobs incentivise investment or pick up the young people leaving school or polytech and place them in the labour market so they can get some practical skills to begin earning a living. Under current policies not only will they struggle to generate enough earnings from a substandard education but they are unlikely ever to own their own homes. 
I have just seen a vision of two mangrove berries in the face of the member from the Hauraki district; that is actually inversely related to productivity. 
Another thing we are hoping the Minister will pick up on is that when the members of the new Productivity Commission are chosen they will have tenacity they will show resilience and they will be prepared to turn up for work day after day hour after hour minute after minute and ensure that the integrity of this institution—the highest court in Parliament—is actually upheld and that speeches are made that consume the last possible minute so that not a skerrick or a sliver of the time allotted is squandered. That is why we will be supporting this bill pertaining to productivity. 
We will also be looking forward to see whether some members on the Government side of the House will actually be looking for jobs on the Productivity Commission after the next election. I am prepared to appeal to Mr Mallard given that he is likely to be the responsible Minister appointing the characters to the Productivity Commission. I am prepared to appeal on behalf of some. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I have to tell the member from the Coromandel district that Hosea’s tongue looks a lot better than that. When he does the haka one can actually see that it is an icon of cultural prestige. 
That member from Coromandel looks as if she is sitting too close to the Minister of Agriculture who needs a dose of productivity. That man has enraged the most powerful and frightening businessman in Auckland who is known as Michael Stiassny. The Minister has gone out of his way to potentially ruin the international meat export industry by focusing his finicky level of interest on unnecessary rules and harsh regulations and he has alienated the community that Michael Stiassny comes from. Not only has he caused the Crown to incur a bill that is somewhere near $400000 or $500000 but he is living proof of why this Productivity Commission is needed. Virtually every agricultural thing he has become involved in—horticultural as well—will need a massive dose of productivity. 
We look forward to working constructively with our colleagues on the other side of the House and being open and candid with them so they know our views about the types of people who ought to be appointed to the Productivity Commission. We do not really want to conceal any information from them. We do not want to obfuscate; we do not want to mislead them so that they may think their prospects are worse or better. All Mr Mallard has done is isolate the number of people who have waited this late in the evening to contribute to the debate. We are suitably impressed to see Mr Quinn and a host of others here at this fatefully late hour. 
Coming back to the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill we look forward to seeing the types of reports that will lie upon the Table of the House of Representatives after they have been commissioned and come via the responsible Minister. We hope a number of those reports are generated from firms and actual investors in the economy because they need an avenue to bring forward their concerns given that the ears of the current Ministers are blocked. They know that jobs are not emerging that debt remains a problem and that capital formation is still a weakness in the economy. 
That may be possible through this Productivity Commission which we have helped to come into being by ensuring that a large number of the Government Ministers and Government members of the House have remained here for this 72-hour Thursday. We are particularly impressed with their tenacity. Although they may entertain rather uncharitable thoughts about how many of us have remained on I just finish by reminding them—in particular my relation Tau Henare—of the korero “Small though the dogfish the pioke may be large is its volume and wake as it makes progress”. Progress does not depend on multitudes of numbers. Kia ora tatou.