Hudson BrettClauses 1 and 2BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Now while we do remain broadly supportive of the bill we've had concerns which we've expressed through the appropriate debate parts this afternoon particularly around the State sector or Crown entity CEO pay and employment terms and conditions—enough so that perhaps such a bland title as the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill may not be the very best title. We're concerned that this could potentially—not just potentially actually. We're concerned because we haven't got movement today on some of the provisions around what the commissioner can and can't do—what they may have to give regard to but no clear weightings and expectations in the legislation at least—that this could have a very chilling effect particularly on those Crown entities on which there have been past public pronouncements around this very area. The Superannuation Fund and ACC strike me as two particular ones. So perhaps we could call it the Suppressing Crown CEO Salaries Reform Bill" or the "State Services Commissioner Empire-building Bill" or any such name like that—not as flippantly as it might sound but actually because we've raised some questions on this side this afternoon which we are concerned haven't been addressed by the Minister.I do note that while it's against Standing Orders to refer to the absence of any member in the Chamber to my knowledge it is not against Standing Orders to refer to the absence of officials in the Chamber to advise the Minister in the committee of the whole House stage. So while I'm very mindful that the Chair might make a comment about the seriousness of a name change that I might suggest I've only been a member here for four years but I can't really recall a committee stage where officials haven't been present to provide advice to the Minister. I actually think that sends a signal to the committee—I'm a member of it and it certainly sends a signal to me—that the Minister didn't come to the committee today with any serious intent to debate the provisions. That is not meant to be unkind to the Minister but it is reflected in the absence of officials to actually answer the questions because he hasn't answered the questions. He's sought to deflect and dissemble and divert—Hon Grant Robertson: No no he has not. He has answered the questions.BRETT HUDSON: —but he hasn't actually answered—OK. Mr Robertson raises this so if I may respond to that interjection Mr Chair I specifically asked a question about in the legislation what weightings would be applied to the criteria that the commissioner has to give regard to—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Hudson we're on clauses 1 and 2.BRETT HUDSON: Yep but the Minister did not answer that question.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That's already been accepted by the committee.BRETT HUDSON: If the officials had been here they could have answered that. So I don't think it actually would be out of order to say that maybe we should rename the title of this bill because perhaps the absence of those officials does indicate that this bill is all about suppressing the salaries of hard-working Crown entity CEOs and perhaps particularly those that have enormous responsibilities for the well-being of New Zealanders. I particularly refer to the Superannuation Fund with their $38 billion worth of assets and ACC who are able to wash their own face in terms of managing the risks and potential financial liabilities to ACC because of the nature of how they run their business and particularly the investment arm of it. So we could and should perhaps call this the "Suppression of Hard-working Crown Entity CEOs' Salaries and Some Associated Inquiries Amendment Bill".The commencement date I think is interesting because it's not been explained. Normally commencement dates are a date or "when it receives Royal assent". It's not been explained by the Minister and I call upon him now to take the opportunity to explain: why is there a specified hard date in this legislation? (1) why doesn't it come into effect as soon as it gets Royal assent? I think the draft Order Paper we saw for this week could see it pass its third reading tomorrow so why is there no Royal assent element to the commencement date? Why that specific date? Why in fact does it not just come into effect for each Crown entity at the time they seek to make their next amendment to CEO salary and conditions for this particular Part 1 or indeed when they next employ a CEO? The Minister might like to just you know elucidate on that. I'm sure he'd be keen to."