New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill

This bill currently before the Committee, originally introduced to the House with the title the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill, has since become the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill. It is a bill that seeks to move some way down the track towards equating with the proposals of the National Party that the various business support agencies within New Zealand should be amalgamated in one authority. It provides that two of those agencies, Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand, should be amalgamated.

During this Committee stage the National Party wants to do a number of things. The first thing we will do, of course, is to propose a number of very well-thought-out amendments that provide for an increased number of agencies to be incorporated in this authority. We will propose to change the name of this authority and to remove the considerable influence of, and potential for meddling by, Ministers that this bill proposes. We will also seek to ensure that prudent management of the taxpayer’s money is an overarching principle with regard to this new authority.

We have moved a number of amendments to the title, because we believe it should more fairly reflect not only what is proposed in the bill but also what the bill will look like after the National Party’s substantial amendments are passed by the Committee. I say that with some confidence, because I am convinced that if the parties in the House genuinely want to support the development of private enterprise and of an export-oriented economy in this country, they will back amendments to roll into this organisation the 32 different granting authorities that currently exist in this country to support business. There is no point in including only two of them in this bill; we should put in the whole lot—all 32.

Very shortly we will be tabling amendments that propose a number of changes to the title. In particular, I recommend to the Committee that it support my amendment to change the title to the “Investment New Zealand Bill”, because the authority that we want to set up, according to our policy, is an agency to be called “Investment New Zealand”. We believe that it would bring a much stronger focus to the effort that we want from this sort of authority. We do not want it to be limited solely to Industry New Zealand, which is now a tainted and discredited brand. We do not want to undermine the good work of Trade New Zealand. We want to have a new authority that gives clear direction as to what we are telling overseas people that this authority will do. It is about investment in New Zealand, so the title should correctly reflect that.

If members do not want to support that amendment, then I have another amendment that reflects clearly what is being proposed in this bill—the “Amalgamation of Trade and Enterprise Services Bill”. That title more fairly reflects what this bill will look like after the National Opposition’s amendments are made, but it is certainly not inconsistent with what is proposed in the bill at this time. I foreshadow that we intend to debate rigorously, right through the night and into tomorrow afternoon, the fact that this bill does not go far enough. The title limits what the bill can do; it shows the limits on the vision of this Government. We want to lift those limits, and to include in this bill the rest of the 32 granting agencies and funds that assist business. We want to have a much more efficient use of the taxpayer’s money, and to expunge from New Zealanders’ memories the disaster that has been Industry New Zealand.

Case after case—Sovereign Yachts, New Zealand Yachts—shows there has been a failed investment by Industry New Zealand. Huge amounts of money have not been granted. That money did not get into the pockets of those who sought it. It is a system that does not encourage small-business people to make use of the funds. The Committee will be hearing about the advice we have received from both small-town and big-city accountants about how difficult it has been for their organisations.

I want to speak to the title and, like my colleague, to advise that the National Party caucus supports this bill. I will be tabling an amendment to the title, and I hope the Committee will support me. I want this bill to be called the “Jim Anderton Self-promotion Bill”, and I will talk about why I want it entitled that.

I draw the Committee’s attention to a press release that Mr Anderton made in the Northern Advocate on 10 December, in which he told Northlanders that Santa had come to town and a bucket of money was arriving. He told them to stand back, because he was on the way and things would come right. Mr Anderton put out a big press statement, and I recall at the time reading the article in the Northern Advocate and thinking it was great, and that if the Minister was going to do that for Northland I would be with him. That is what I thought, even though I am opposed to Mr Anderton’s policies and philosophy. I thought that if he would make things better for Northland, I would support him in that. I came out publicly the next day, in the paper, and congratulated the Minister. I said that if he did all the things he had spoken about on 10 December in the Northern Advocate, then good on him. I said I would work with him because I would be happy to see that happen.

But what a disgrace that Minister has turned out to be. He has been an absolute failure. I want him to tell the Committee today what progress he has made in his portfolio for Northland, in the context of the press statement he put out. It is an absolute shambles up in Northland. In that article Mr Anderton said he had already met with the local mayors and iwi, and was impressed by the commitment of Northland regional leaders to job creation, particularly for young school-leavers. I am sure he was, because I know those people were committed to that. They still are. The sad thing is that Mr Anderton, the Minister in the chair, was not. That is the problem. That press release was just self-promotion by Jim Anderton. He has been an absolute failure. He should be ashamed of himself for coming up to Northland and trying to get Northlanders to think that things would happen, when they have not happened, at all.

Although I support this bill, I say to the Minister he should get going and make something happen, instead of issuing the farcical, self-promotional stuff that we have had. I remember him in the House, a week or two after that press release, getting someone to ask a question and then berating and denigrating me, because I had gone out there and supported him. Well, I have to say he was right and I was wrong; I should not have supported him. I do not want to be in the camp of that failed Minister. The mayors in Northland—and the Committee will want to know this, so I will put this on the record—are saying they should forget it. They say they have put up project after project, and proposal after proposal, to that Minister and his department, and have not received a solitary sausage. Nothing!

The Minister will stand up shortly and wax lyrical, saying that I do not know what I am talking about. He will say this and that are happening. Well, that will all be hot air and wind from this Minister—nothing. Let him point to something substantial that has happened. I just say thank goodness we have some leaders in Northland who are trying to make things go, despite having this Minister and his department in the place. I will be talking later on during the debate on this bill about some of the personal failures that have happened as a consequence of this Minister’s policies—some of the lack of impact that he has had on people who had good ideas, and who wanted to make progress. This Minister and his team of people have let them down.

I tell the Minister in the chair that he can stand up in this Committee and say what he likes. He can tell this Parliament how good this legislation is and what a difference this bill will make. Well, I wish he were right. But if news of that gets up into Northland, I tell the Minister that people there will not believe him. No one there now believes him. He has no credibility in Northland, at all—none whatsoever. If the Minister thinks he can carry on promoting himself and his party—whatever it is—through this sort of legislation, he is mistaken. He has become an absolute joke. Along with a number of other Ministers in that Cabinet, Mr Anderton needs to go. He is an absolute failure, and this bill will not save him.

Putting these two departments together will not save this Minister. It is a good idea to put the two departments together in order to cut down on some of the bureaucracy, but I only wish some of the bureaucrats could get down to addressing what New Zealanders really want, and, instead of getting in their way, could get beside people and make things happen.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Just before I call the next speaker and hear Mr Jones’ point of order, I remind members that this bill has been to the Commerce Committee, so therefore the title debate is confined to the title.

When the last vote was taken, I inadvertently voted 12 for New Zealand First, when I should have voted 13. Can I seek leave now, or shall I wait until Mr Speaker comes back, to alter the New Zealand First vote?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That change has to be made in the House.

ACT New Zealand is apparently the only party opposing this bill. In speaking to the title of this legislation, I note that the previous legislation was called the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill. Therein lies the real problem. ACT is asking what the role of the Government is. Is it the role of the Government to keep setting up new organisations and shuffling the chairs? We say it is not. In looking back at the history of this particular title, members may recall that we used to have the Department of Trade and Industry. In those days there was import licensing and the like, and everyone had to lobby the politicians to get their import licences from the Department of Trade and Industry. That went away, and we set up the Ministry of Commerce. The role of the Ministry of Commerce was the legitimate role of Government—that is, the role of regulator. In other words, all of the regulatory functions that the Government should be performing were tucked into the Ministry of Commerce.

In 1988 we set up the Trade Development Board, and philosophically I would still have to question that. Is it the role of Government to be out there doing the trade? I say that is a function of the private sector—it will do it best. The role of Government is to ease the passage for that trade and get the fundamentals right—certainly, things like tariff barriers between nations are the legitimate role of Government. But when the Government becomes the active player, I think one gets into difficulties. I acknowledge, however, that Tradenz, under the stewardship of Peter Shirtcliffe, did some splendid work in those early years.

In more recent times, we have had the Government getting back into the active player role in promoting industry with Industry New Zealand. We say that is fundamentally flawed philosophically. It is really saying: “I’m from the Government, I’m here to help you, and I’ll bribe you with your own money, and wow, gee, boy, have I got a deal for you!” That is what the Minister in the chair has been doing—he has been going around the country trying to bribe people with their own money. We have already heard of the incredible failures associated with that.

Getting back to the title, essentially we have Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand. It will actually be spelt “INZTNZ”. What sort of State agency will that be? Who wants an “INZTNZ”? ACT says that is not the legitimate role of Government. We know that compliance costs and the taxing of small and medium-sized business are the biggest obstacle to growth and wealth creation in this country. Setting up another super-bureaucracy by melding these two organisations together is not the answer. I heard the National speaker say in relation to the title that his party proposes to set up a new organisation called Investment New Zealand. I am sorry, but ACT opposes that. All that is doing is going back to the Development Finance Corporation. It will fail for the same reasons that the Development Finance Corporation failed. It is not the legitimate role of the Government to be doing those sorts of things. I thought we were past that era.

We have had a long, painful transition in this country. The rest of the world has left us behind on most fronts, and here we are talking about going back to the failed policies of the past. We are doing it, firstly, with Jim Anderton’s Industry New Zealand, which has been going only 2 years—

💬 John Carter: Less.

Less actually, and all we have had is a succession of failures. They are the sorts of failures one expects when one politicises something like the promotion of industry. Why? Because that is not the role of the Government. All one invites is pork-barrel politics, and that is what we have seen. We have mentioned the Sovereign Yachts fiasco, and that was a fiasco.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry, but I did give the member a warning about the title. Please keep to the title.

Indeed, because this is all to do with the title. The title is the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill, and the proposal is to meld Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand into a superministry. ACT says there is no point in playing around with the title. We say that this legislation is wrong in principle from the outset, and we should not be having it in any form whatsoever. That is the essential message from the ACT party.

I listened with some interest to the speech made by the member who has just resumed his seat. I can relate to the history lesson he gave us, because at various times I was part of it. I began my working career in the Department of Trade and Industry, doing import licensing in the days when it was as corrupt as the member described.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It made the member go grey.

Absolutely—and prematurely, I might add. I was subsequently involved in the Government that established the Ministry of Commerce. Indeed, I had a role in that ministry as part of the executive at that time.

This bill is called the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill That title is descriptive of what the bill actually does, which is to integrate the two organisations. I take the rather simple view that because the title states what the bill actually does, it is probably about right as the title of the bill. Some of the more fanciful titles that have been suggested this afternoon are not as accurate in terms of what the bill does as the bill’s actual title—surprise, surprise!

I want to take issue with another point that the member who preceded me raised. He was correct to say that the fundamental question this bill raises is what the role of Government is in this area. Where he and I diverge is that he seemed to assume that the act of integrating Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand into a new organisation somehow made for a bigger super-bureaucracy and a much more activist new organisation than is currently the case, or is proposed by this legislation. I do not believe that any member of this Committee wants to see Big Brother or Big Sister out there trying to dictate the way we operate in the international marketplace. However, there is a place for an agency that integrates both the level of Government assistance to industry in the domestic market with the work we do to facilitate our export opportunities overseas, and that is what this bill attempts to do. Members will be well aware of the constant complaints about the amount of money we invest in export promotion and development not matching the actual needs of the exporters themselves. The link from the domestic economy to the international economy simply has not been addressed before.

The integration of Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand into the new New Zealand Trade and Enterprise organisation that the bill establishes is entirely proper, and for that reason the title proposed is entirely consistent. Some of the other concerns that members have raised will no doubt be debated during the remaining stages of this Committee debate, but I cannot think of a more logical title for the bill than the one that has been proposed.

As understand it, the title of the bill is to be the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act, whereas some members still seem to think it is called the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill. One of the amendments in the select committee was that this bill be called the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act in due course.

New Zealand First’s criticism of this legislation—and New Zealand First will support it—is that this concept was introduced a couple of years or so ago with a great deal of fanfare by this Minister. He said it would change everything, but we find that the Government could not even agree on the name of the legislation. It is such a simple matter that one would have thought that the ministry, the Minister, and the Government could have got it right but, no, they could not. This whole legislation is an example of how this Government has failed to give officials enough support and encouragement to do their work. That is why this legislation has had to come back to the Committee. It is so symptomatic of the whole situation that even today we have a bill that went to a select committee with one name and came back with another. New Zealand First will support the legislation, but from time to time we will give it some degree of criticism.

One of the things we will raise in connection with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, and, in particular, with this Minister’s role, is how one might develop the area at Whenuapai in Auckland to take trade and enterprise into account, bearing in mind the imminent closure of the Royal New Zealand Air Force airbase at Whenuapai. That is something that an organisation of this kind could be involved in, and perhaps should be involved in. As a member of New Zealand First, I will take a close interest in it.

I get a bit worried when the Hon Peter Dunne of United Future expresses his support for the bill, when he thinks it is still known as the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill. The new name is the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill. I guess there is an impression that it is not simply an amalgamation of two organisations—Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand. The changed name suggests to the public that the combined organisation will do more in terms of promoting New Zealand trade and the enterprise culture.

First of all, I support the change from the original name, Industry New Zealand. When Industry New Zealand was first set up, I was on the Commerce Committee, and when we conducted a financial review of that organisation, it seemed to be simply full of consultants, advisers, and contractors. Indeed, Industry New Zealand is creating employment, but for its own organisation. It is not encouraging any additional employment out in the public. Everybody has heard about the Sovereign Yachts saga.

I congratulate the Commerce Committee on deleting the name “Industry New Zealand” from this bill, but I support my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall’s proposal that it be known as the “Investment New Zealand Bill”. New Zealand needs to be internationally competitive; we need other international investors to know New Zealand and have confidence in us. So I think that “Investment New Zealand” would be a very good name if, indeed, the intention of this bill is to make sure that New Zealand creates an internationally competitive and attractive investment climate.

The National Party supports the intention of the bill to combine these two organisations. We believe it is a good beginning, but a very small step. The fact that we still have 32 organisations trying to assist business is in itself a worry; it is confusing the various businesses as to which one they should seek assistance from. This bill is a good start, but it is a very small step towards those 32 organisations coming together to pursue a single objective, which is to make New Zealand an internationally attractive investment destination.

The Commerce Committee changed the name to “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise”, and during the Committee stage National wants to see that the bill’s intention is to encourage the enterprising spirit. I will examine that in detail throughout the Committee stage to make sure, for example, that the compliance burden will be lessened, because the aim of the new organisation is to champion a competitive business environment. Many, many times have we heard complaints about compliance costs, and the fact that the Resource Management Act is a barrier to the ability of various business organisations to grow and thrive in New Zealand.

I think this bill is a good move. The coming together of Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand is first step. I compliment the Commerce Committee on deleting the name “Industry New Zealand” from the title of the bill, because in its short duration Industry New Zealand has done nothing but create employment for bureaucracy within its own organisation.

If the member thinks that the people of New Zealand at the local, regional, and business level think Industry New Zealand has done nothing for New Zealand and the business development of this country, then that shows why that party is sitting there and this Government and its supporters are over here with the support we have.

The member who has just spoken indicated that she was amazed that United Future is supporting this bill. She may be equally amazed that her own party is supporting it. The one-stop shop, which is supported overwhelmingly by the business community of New Zealand, was supported, of course, during the election campaign by the Progressive party and the Labour Party, and I am glad that the National Party is also supporting it.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: We are your party! We’re business.

Investment New Zealand was one small division, I have to say to Mr Ryall, of Trade New Zealand—that is what it used to be. It was incorporated into Industry New Zealand about a year ago, and now the member wants to name the whole bill after that one small element of Industry New Zealand.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: You got it. At long last!

I have to remind the member—and he may well want to discuss this with people, if he ever does talk to the business and regional community of New Zealand—that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will be a developmental agency covering business and industry development in New Zealand as well as incoming investment and development from off shore. It will not be just an investment agency, and to describe it as such would be a misnomer in terms of all the activity it will have to engage in.

I have to say to Mr Carter that the mayors and councillors—

💬 Hon David Carter: Which Mr Carter?

—of the far north and the Northland region have stated on the record on a number of occasions that they have never, at any time in the history of the north, had such support from, or the presence of, Ministers and Government as they have had from the Ministers and Government represented by the Labour-Progressive coalition.

💬 John Carter: Has the Minister asked them recently?

I invite Mr Carter to attend any meeting that I attend, and to put it to those meetings that previous Governments of which he was a member did more for the north than this Government has done. He will get an awful shock when he is told what the answer to that is.

The response of business and regions of New Zealand to this step has been incredibly positive. They have wanted this step to be taken, and now it is being taken. I would hope that the Opposition members could actually stop the game playing, and understand, as they clearly do, the need for this legislation, the importance of it, and the support it has across the whole community. I hope that they will let us get on with the job, as we want to get on with it, and stop simply playing games.

As far as Mr Shirley and the ACT party are concerned, the failed policies of the past, which he talked about, are the failed policies of his leader and the current policies of the ACT party that it wants us to go back to. We have no intention of doing that. This bill shows clearly where we intend to go, and the speech made by Mr Shirley tells me where the ACT party is going, and that is nowhere.

I rise on behalf of the National Party to support this legislation. It is a little bit like the singer formerly known as Prince, but now known as a symbol. This bill is now the industry bill, but was formerly known as the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill.

I want to talk for a second about why we support this legislation and this title. It is because National supports business-friendly legislation. So National does support saving some costs, and there has been quite a blowout in costs.

But why, one may ask, is this title such a bland title? The title “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act” is a very bland title indeed. We on this side of the House have put forward some amendments. There have been some ideas from my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall about the name being the “Investment New Zealand Act”. There have been some suggestions from the senior whip about the title being the “Jim Anderton Self-promotion Act”. But we see here the very bland title "New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act".

Why is the title such a bland title? I will inform members of the Committee why the title is so bland. When Jim Anderton established Industry New Zealand he promised up and down this fine land that he would in fact be giving a great many grants out to a great many people, and that it would be a triumph for the “jobs machine”. That is what he promised. Is that what Industry New Zealand has actually delivered? I say "No". It has delivered—

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Ha, ha!

The Minister in the chair laughs. It has a delivered a few jobs—at what cost? It has an operating budget of $45.8 million! One can provide a lot of jobs for $45.8 million. So that bit is out of the title; that keeps it nice and bland.

The second reason the title is nice and bland is that the Minister is embarrassed by the very people who, he said, would create jobs. He went up and down the land and said: “Don’t worry; we’ll be rolling into town with a chequebook. We’ll be rolling into town, buying a few votes and writing out cheques for a few jobs.” He said that people should not worry, because Industry New Zealand—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Remember that they were going to be the party of small business?

Yes, it was going to be the party of small business, developing businesses up and down the land. He said: “Industry New Zealand—that’s the name. Put it on your fridge, using your fridge magnets. Write it on the back of your notepad. Keep it close. Keep it in your thoughts wherever you go.” That is what he said. He said that "Industry New Zealand" would be the title. He said it would be the thing to remember. Do I see the words “Industry New Zealand” in this title? No. Why? Because the Minister knows he cannot deliver, and the Minister is embarrassed.

I want to raise my own amendment, my own suggestion, which I think would make a great deal more sense than this very bland title “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act.” The Minister may take on board this suggestion; it is a very serious suggestion. In my former commercial life I had the opportunity to be on the board of a multinational that had an operation in Ireland, and we worked very closely with the Irish Development Authority. The word “development” cuts to the heart of the very reason that National supports this legislation. Developing New Zealand, whether it is through investment, the creation of more entrepreneurial ideas, or the support of entrepreneurs, is what this bill is all about. That is how we will have growth in productivity in New Zealand. That is how we will deliver jobs to young people, who are currently leaving and going to Australia. Development is how we will do it.

It will not be done by writing a cheque for a couple of failed losers that the Government could not pick—well, it can pick the losers, actually. I could name a few. [Interruption] I was saving this up for a later debate, but if the senior Government whip wants me to read them out, I am happy to point out that a helluva lot of people who get a grant do not take up the second tranche, because they have gone broke.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): John Carter—sorry, David Parker.

JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I heard you call me.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I did not realise that a member over there was standing to call.

💬 JOHN CARTER: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I had not finished calling. I will call the member in a minute.

💬 JOHN CARTER: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You had called my name.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I had not seen there was another call from the other side. I looked at you, and I was going to call, but I did not.

💬 JOHN CARTER: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do realise that you had not seen Mr Parker stand to call. But the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings provide that once a member is called, that cannot be reversed. The fact is that if Mr Parker wants to make a contribution, it would be appropriate for you now to allow me to continue, and he can take the next call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): All right, carry on.

Thank you Madam Chairperson. I want to respond to the Minister’s comments. I am pleased that he took a call. I refer to a press statement he made on 10 December 2002. Indeed, he also had made previous press statements. In his comments he said—and he is quite correct—that the leaders, the mayors, are on record as supporting what he proposed. That is quite correct, and I have no argument with that.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: No, what we’ve done.

That is a different thing. [Interruption] Yes. They supported his proposal, and they said publicly that it would be good for Northland, and to get on with it. So did I. The Minister harangued me in the House for that. He made a joke, and had all his side laughing about John Carter, the senior National Party whip, coming out in support of it. But I still thought it was great, and so did the mayors, the regional council chairmen, the iwi leaders—the whole lot, indeed.

He said that he had met recently with the Northland Intersectoral Forum, and he had; that is quite right. But I wonder whether Mr Anderton would care to ask those leaders now what they thought. I wonder whether he would like them to make a public statement about what they think of him now. Quite honestly, I tell that failed Minister in the chair that he would not get that same warm response, at all. The mayors and the chairmen of the councils have given up on this Minister, because they know that he and his department are a joke.

The only reason we are having any success at all is that a very good guy called Mike Sims, who is charge of some of this stuff from a local point of view, does a great job.

💬 John Key: And a very good local member, if I might say so.

Absolutely. Personally, I would not want to take any praise myself; it is not in my nature to congratulate myself. Despite this Minister, and despite the failings of his department, which we will talk about when we get to the purpose clause, Mike Sims and his team are making progress. I challenge the Minister to get any one mayor, or regional council chairman, or iwi leader, or any other leader in Northland to state publicly that Jim Anderton is doing a great job.

That is why I have put in an amendment stating that the bill should be called the “Jim Anderton Self-promotion Bill”. [Interruption] If that member over there wants to interject, he should get back to his seat to do so. The fact is this Minister has failed Northland. He said: “In the implementation stages up to $2 million will be available for the region for major priorities you set for your regional development.” That is great, good, and excellent. Where is it? What is it doing? What are we getting out of it? Who does it employ? How has it helped Northland? Not a sausage. If the Minister wants to promote himself, this is his opportunity to lay out that list. If one has $2 million, surely one could buy some success, rather than create it! I thought that that $2 million would expand Northland.

The Minister talks about having 3.5 percent growth, although, according to his last press statement, there was a decline in the last quarter. I would have thought that the Minister would be saying: “I’ve put this money in through my department. I’m the Minister who created this, and this is what it’s done. Look at all this unemployment going down, and all that sort of stuff. There’s more businesses happening. People are better off. We’re getting more taxes.” Well, we in Northland are, because the farmers are doing better—or have been; I have to say they are not doing not so well at the moment. But I am worried about industry. Tourism is doing well, but not because of this Minister.

I have a number of examples where small-business people have gone to the Minister’s department to ask for assistance, and have failed to get it, and that is sad. Although there is a debate to be had about Mr Shirley’s point of view, I want to take some time later during this debate to suggest to the Minister ways in which he could make this work, but it is not working at the moment.

I move, That the question be now put.

We have some amendments to clause 1. The first is in the name of John Carter, which I have ruled out of order as not a proper and serious description of the bill.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to:

to omit the words “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act 2003”, and substitute the words “Amalgamation of Trade and Enterprise Services Act 2003”.