Carter John: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Carter John: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6317] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: I have been having a quick read through the schedules while I was listening to my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall and I have to say that the more I read them the more I started to disbelieve what I was reading. Can members believe that that sort of wording is put into legislation? Members should have a look at clause 6 of schedule 1 “Duty to act with honesty and integrity” which states: “A member must when acting as a member act with honesty and integrity.” Goodness gracious me! Why would anybody be appointed if it were thought that they would act otherwise? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: And what is the penalty if they don’t? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well hang on; we will come to that in a minute. The first thing I want to do is ask this question: is this Government saying that there are other places where they appoint people who do not act with honesty and integrity? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Te Mangai Paho. 
JOHN CARTER 
: OK I did not want to refer to Te Mangai Paho. However I say it is incredible that the Government would have to set all that out in legislation. For goodness’ sake! What sort of people do they expect they will be appointing to this jolly board if they think they have to spell all that out for them? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Failed Labour candidates. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is the worry really is it not? The member Ken Shirley is absolutely right. He interjects and says: “Failed Labour candidates”. That is probably why this sort of thing has to be written. I cannot believe this. It is just incredible that the Government has to write down the fact that someone has to act on behalf of the taxpayers of this country with honesty and integrity. I would have thought that any Government that selects anybody to be on a board would just assume they would act in that way. Why would one spell it out? The next thing is that if we go to clause 7 we see that it is headed: “Duty to act in good faith and not at expense of entity’s interests”. Why would one appoint anybody who was not going to act in the interests of the entity to which they had been appointed? Can members believe that? I have to say that it would make one’s hair stand on end. It is quite amazing. I mean look at what it is doing to mine! It is quite incredible and I cannot believe it. I move on and ask what the penalties are. I have read the penalties somewhere—no; there are not any penalties. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The penalty is you have to have dinner with the Prime Minister. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It would not surprise me if that were written in this schedule but I cannot find it. Let me bring members to clause 10(2). I ask them to listen to this: “If a board does not comply with any of its collective duties all or any of the members may be removed from office.” One might ask: “OK what is wrong with that?” Nothing—but why does it not apply to Cabinet? If the Government is going to write this sort of thing into the provisions of a board—that it is representing the taxpayers of New Zealand—I would have thought that it should apply to the members of the “board of New Zealand” the Cabinet. I say that if it is good enough to have it in this bill then it is should apply consistently. If we are going to ask members of this board to comply—and they can be removed if they do not comply—with all the collective duties then the provision should apply consistently. I say that this Parliament spends a lot of time dealing with people who do not deal collectively and act as a collective. If this sort of law is to be written then it has to apply consistently. With regard to these schedules I say that if this is the sort of law we are starting to write then we have to wonder what sort of country we are becoming. It really worries me. Earlier on we talked about other measures associated with the bill. We talked about payouts for people—golden handshakes—when promises had been made that there would not be any. We then see that the Government has to write in the fact that people have to be honest and act with integrity. It also has to write in the fact that people have to act in good faith and not at the expense of the entity’s interest. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: What research was done on this speech? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Goodness gracious me! How can Minister Swain possibly be in a Cabinet that writes this sort of legislation? Is it for some of the people he plays rugby with or something? If that is the sort of team that those members are going to put up it makes me wonder what we have to be worried about.