New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill

Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, the debate on the title and commencement.

Well, we’ve obviously got the title there: Clause 1 Title, “This Act is New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Act 2024” but it doesn’t really give much away, does it? We know there’s a lot more going on under the surface. Perhaps the appropriate title for the Act—and we could always put an amendment on the Table—would be the “David Seymour Vanity Regulation Ministry Establishment Act”, because that’s what’s really going on here. Or maybe it’s the “We Don’t Want to Know Independent Opinion Act”, because that’s the other thing that’s going on.

It’s really disappointing that what we’ve got here is a piece of legislation where the National Party has allowed the ACT Party to shuffle off to one side an independent voice for the very thing that the National Party claims it’s in favour of, which is productivity. We heard a whole lot of kind of wandering speeches last night, with the general theme that the National Party is keen on better productivity and better industries, and, from the member for Tukituki, more apples, but overall and in general it seems to be that the National Party like the idea of an independent voice which enhanced productivity in New Zealand. But here what we have is the quashing of one of the independent, thoughtful voices we have in respect of productivity in New Zealand. So maybe this bill really should be the “ACT Party Wins Bill”, or, better still, the “ACT Party Wins Again Bill”, because that’s really what we’ve got going on here.

In terms of this bill being a simple repeal bill, it’s actually a lot more than that because it’s really—a better title might be the “Lack of Productivity Bill”, because that’s what’s going on here. The Productivity Commission—and we heard this time and time again yesterday—has done some fantastic work. Now, the real criticism was that Government wasn’t obliged to respond and pick up that work, but the fact of the matter is that it’s there and it’s a resource to be used, and it has to be said that Government—and Parliament as well—looked carefully at those reports and was challenged by them.

But we know that that party—the ACT Party—doesn’t like to be challenged, and the National Party likes to go along with the ACT Party. So maybe it should be the “Please Don’t Challenge Us Because It All Gets a Bit Awkward Bill”. But the real point I want to make here is that in this bill, the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill, there’s a lot more going on. What we have going on is the replacement of one ACT idea with another ACT idea, because the leadership has changed, and every ACT leader likes to leave a legacy. This ACT leader thinks that his legacy is going to be the “Kafka ministry”—I mean the ministry of regulation, which, no doubt, another ACT leader will come along and squash with another commission or ministry of some sort or other to leave their legacy as well. So, in terms of the title of this legislation, I put to the Minister, why doesn’t he call it what it really is: the “David Seymour Vanity Act”?

I just want to focus and ask the Minister a couple of questions about clause 2, the commencement clause. Noting that the Act comes into force on 29 February 2024—and it is a serious matter I want to raise with the Minister because he—

💬 Hon David Seymour: You shouldn’t really say that.

Well, no, because the Minister hasn’t responded to any of my other questions. So, you know, I was trying to give him a guide to the fact I might want one after this—which is that he himself spoke about staff of the Productivity Commission in either the first or second reading speech last night. There is a group of highly specialised expert researchers who produce incredibly interesting and important work at the commission who go on 29 February under clause 2 and as a result of clause 11 that was within Part 2. So just to be clear for members, clause 11(2)—which we’ve already passed—says: “All employment and appointment positions with the Commission are terminated.”

I want some assurance from the Minister today about the process that is being used to work through with those staff. What then happens in clause 11(3) is that all responsibilities in relation to employment or appointment matters become the liability or the responsibility of the ministry—which is, we’ve learnt, the Treasury.

So my questions for the Minister are: what arrangements are in place to support those people to stay within the Public Service? And what support has been given to the Treasury who will now take responsibility for all of the outstanding matters? I would not be at all surprised if, in the course of just on a month, they may not be able to resolve all of the issues that exist around staffing or employment. These people have had their jobs ended unceremoniously through this Act of Parliament, and I think the Minister should stand up and tell us what is being done to support them and what is being done to work and support the Treasury in order for them to fulfil the roles that are given them in clause 11.

Cameron Brewer.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Luxton.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Luxton, sorry.

Ha, ha! Thank you, Mr Robertson. I move, That debate on this question now close.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a contribution at this late point of the committee stage, but I guess I would like to add my voice to the previous honourable member’s contribution asking the question “What are the provisions in place around the staff that are currently at the Productivity Commission?”

I do just have to note the incredible irony, but, in fact, it’s so fitting that it was a previous ACT Party coalition agreement that set up the Productivity Commission, back in the day when the ACT Party was more like a real libertarian party and cared about good governance instead of just representing billionaires. Back in the day, they actually believed in the possibility of an independent institution like a commission for productivity. But the sad truth is that, under the current leadership and direction of the ACT Party, they aren’t interested in things that would genuinely result in a more productive economy, because the things that result in a more productive economy—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ms Genter, this is a very narrow part of the bill. It is not the opportunity for a general debate comment. It is on the title and commencement. So at least, if you’re going to make those comments, make some attempt to relate them to the title and commencement, and then you may get some—

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for reminding me of that, because, as the Hon Duncan Webb was saying, it is quite possible that the more appropriate title would be a title that was making note of the fact that the current ACT Party is more interested in creating more direct Government bureaucracy that they can control in an autocratic way rather than having an independent commission that’s providing independent advice, because they don’t like that independent advice.

I do want to note, just as the Hon Duncan Webb did in his contribution on this part, that the Productivity Commission under the John Key years actually did produce quite a lot of very useful and important research. Because I haven’t had the opportunity to make a contribution in this debate, I’ll just put that out there now. I remember very well, between 2011 and 2017, there were fantastic reports coming out from the Productivity Commission, even though it was a John Key - led Government and Mr Seymour was involved in one of those Governments. But the Minister really should answer the very serious question about what provisions are being made for the people who will be unemployed as a result of this bill and this part, at the end of the month that starts tomorrow. And we haven’t heard that answer from the Minister.

So, as long as I have two minutes left in my contribution, I would very much like to point out that, overall, this is a fitting move for someone who doesn’t believe in having an independent Government institution at arm’s length from Government Ministers to provide actual relevant economic evidence that would support improving productivity in New Zealand, but rather create—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ms Genter, the fact that you haven’t contributed previously does not entitle you to actually make statements that are not pertinent to this very narrow part of the bill. So at least, in the time left to you, you may try to relate it to that particular part; otherwise, I’ll be asking you to sit down.

Well, again, we could talk about how the title of the bill, Mr Chair, could be something like the “Expanding Government Bureaucracy for the Purposes of the ACT Party Bill”, so that they can act on behalf of their 1 percent donors rather than actually doing something that would genuinely improve the productivity of this country. I think there are two points being made here. One is that the Minister has not risen to answer—and will not—the very relevant question put to him by two members now on this side of the Chamber. And the second point is simply that we could come up with a much more relevant title for this bill—one that points out the absolute hypocrisy of this fake libertarian Minister.

I just listened to that spewing of bile and all I thought is, “I hope they make her the next co-leader for the good of New Zealand.”!

I want to turn to the question from Grant Robertson in relation to those staff. What I will say is that when we decided to go down the track of disestablishing the commission, my initial and first instructions to the officials is that we would deal in a way that was respectful and accommodated the needs of staff and our obligations to them as a priority. I can understand people want to say, “Well, how has that gone?” I think it would be wrong for me to comment further when people are still undergoing, or may still be undergoing, negotiations and the like.

But I can assure the committee and the member that the way that we’ve gone about this is that some of my first words to the officials responsible for this policy process has been to accommodate those staff and their rights and the obligations to them. Those obligations, the member asked, will be passed over to the Treasury. Of course, if the Treasury indicates that it needs support in order to honour that commitment to those staff, then then we’ll ensure that we do that.

However, I also just make the point that if they’re very talented people—and I agree that they are—then I think they’re going to be just fine. I also want to use one of the last opportunities in the debate to thank those people for the excellent work that they’ve done to date and remind people that that work will be available in perpetuity. I think it’s time for Governments to implement a bit more of it rather than commission more of it.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the question be—actually, I’m just reminded, because no one else took a call, we’ll go straight into the vote.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.