New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill

In taking a call on this part, I foreshadow that there are a significant number of amendments in the name of the National Opposition. Frankly, there will be a very difficult situation in this Chamber, I suspect, if there is a truncated debate on this part, as there was on the last question.

This debate is an opportunity for the Committee to look at the very purpose of this organisation. The National Party in Opposition has moved a number of very well-drafted amendments that seek to provide for more of a one-stop shop for the delivery of business support services than this Government provides for. Our plan for Investment New Zealand is to have all the various granting and development structures incorporated in that authority, so that New Zealand business and New Zealand taxpayers can be assured that they are being administered and developed in the most appropriate way. We simply do not believe that the myriad of funds that is currently out there should all be under different roofs.

We have the Enterprise Awards Scheme, the Investment Ready Scheme, the incubator development unit, the Business Growth Service, the Major Investment Service, sector strategies, regional business programmes, the Business Cluster Pilot Programme, the Industrial Supplies Office, the World Class New Zealanders programme, the major events support fund, the Celebrating a Culture of Success fund, the Talented New Zealanders project, the Developing More Highly Skilled New Zealanders Through Adult Literacy fund, the Electronic Commerce Action Team and Network—which has just voted itself out of existence—the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, the Science and Innovation Advisory Council, the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, the Supporting Promising Individuals programme, the New Economy Research Fund, Technology New Zealand, the Research for Industry fund, the Grants for Private Sector Research and Development, and the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund. The list goes on and on. We also have Trade New Zealand, Investment New Zealand, the e-commerce strategy for exporters, and the Overseas Investment Commission. Anything that one can think of, this Government has a fund and a programme for.

That is only half of it. I have not talked about all the enterprise grant schemes that we can get through Work and Income or about the funds we can get from Te Puni Kōkiri, the business development programme from Te Māngai Pāho, and the international travel fund of Te Māngai Pāho. We have not talked about any of that stuff. That is all available, as well, for business support. Would members believe that there is a fund for business development in the Ministry of Women’s Affairs? In the past there was always a separate fund for encouraging women’s business development in that ministry, and I would be very surprised if it is not still there. There are business development funds available though the Māori agencies, as well.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: And lower taxes.

And lower taxes especially for them, as well. Those are the things that this Government offers for business. It is a hodgepodge of confusion. In fact, there are at least 32 different grant structures, and every agency seems to have representatives who visit 200 companies. It is not unusual to meet people in business who say that five public servants have offered them money.

It is simply not efficient to have all those different funds, different granting agencies, and different Government departments go out and ask people to apply for money. In fact, we even have significant New Zealand business leaders writing articles that state it is not unusual to have several of those agencies knocking on one’s door and offering money. The fact is we need to have a system whereby a business that is looking for some support or encouragement has one person—one stop—where it can go to and receive a straight answer. We can imagine the amount of taxpayers’ money that would be saved if the purpose of this bill was to put the prudent financial management of taxpayers’ resources to the fore. The huge amounts of money that would be released from administration would then go to New Zealanders.

It is remarkable that there were some estimates that about one-third of the money provided for various grants programmes is eaten up in the administration and bureaucracy of those funds. We can imagine how much cash could be released if we had a streamlined and efficient organisation, as the National Party proposes in its amendments. That is why we have moved a number of amendments.

On reading through the interpretation clause, I presume it is still correct to say that there is an Industry New Zealand, meaning the Crown entity established under section 7 of the Industry New Zealand Act, along with the new Crown entity that is also to be established under clause 7 in Part 2. However, clause 3(2) states: “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is the Crown entity responsible for facilitating (in co-operation with industry, central and local government, and relevant community groups) the development and implementation of strategies, programmes, and activities for trade, industry, and regional development as directed by the Government.”

I want to focus particularly on my area of interest, and to ask the Minister what is happening with the land at Whenuapai, which is currently the Royal New Zealand Air Force base in Auckland. Someone in the department has set up an officials committee to look into the future development of the area—

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: That’s nothing to do with this bill.

Why should it not be? This bill relates to development, and we want to see development. The Minister is telling us that he does not want to see development and that development has nothing to do with this bill, when surely that is what this bill is all about. Either it is about New Zealand trade and enterprise and development, or it is not. I have read out the purpose clause to the Minister, and I will read it out to him again, to remind him what it is he is doing, because it relates to “the development and implementation of strategies, programmes, and activities for trade, industry, and regional development as directed by the Government”, and that is to be done “in co-operation with industry, central and local government, and relevant community groups”.

There could be no better example of such a regional development or a development proposal than the use of the 300 hectares of land that is currently RNZAF Base Auckland. I would ask the Minister, if this has not occurred to him and to the minority Labour Government, supported by United Future, to start—

💬 Darren Hughes: And 54 percent of New Zealand.

How many? Fifty-four percent of New Zealand—and going down, as Lance Adams-Schneider would have said in the good old trade and industry days. It should occur to them now. The Minister is telling the people of Waitakere City, North Shore City, and Rodney District that he is not interested in the way that this type of department and Government strategy could work in that area. I would say that on the North Shore there are 200,000 people, in west Auckland—in Waitakere City—we have about 200,000 people, and around the immediate area of Rodney District we may have another 40,000 to 50,000. So I can tell him we have approximately 400,000 to 450,000 people in that area who are interested in the future development of Whenuapai.

This Minister was able to interfere at Hobsonville and set up a failed boat-building enterprise. I give him credit for trying to do something, because that is what this is all about. New Zealand First says that we want to assist. We want to try to get things done and to actually develop real things, not just bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants and try to live off their money, but really develop something for New Zealand itself. I thought that was what this bill was all about—New Zealand trade and enterprise. If we are going to match, say, the development that has taken place in Albany—which was a result of the National Government coming in in 1975 and not allowing the land to be used for State houses, and of its being developed so well over the succeeding 18 years or so with the assistance of members of Parliament and Takapuna City Council, and then North Shore City Council—I would see a similar type of development being considered in the Whenuapai area.

An officials committee was set up, and we had a Government official stand up at a meeting at Whenuapai and tell us that the committee was considering the matter. One assumed he was the man from the ministry, and one assumed he was the man from Jim Anderton’s ministry, but it seems that Jim Anderton does not want to know anything about that. I think the various people in Waitakere City, North Shore City, and the Rodney District deserve a response from Jim Anderton, the Minister, because if he is not telling us that it was an utter waste of time to have that officials committee and that nothing will be done under his ministry, we need to know that. Otherwise, what is the point of people taking any notice of this minority Labour Government? All that Jim Anderton wants to do, it would seem, is to flood the area with State houses for people who have only just arrived in New Zealand. He does not seem to be at all interested in what New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses—and immigrants’ businesses—may want to develop in Waitakere City, where development is so necessary.

In addressing Part 1, I want to speak for a moment about the purpose of the bill. The purpose, as was pointed out by the previous speaker, Mr Dail Jones, is extremely important. It is the development of competitive businesses for New Zealand, and I want to point out to the Committee why that is of such great significance. New Zealand is a country of small businesses. We have a huge number of small businesses all across the country, and the number is growing at any one time.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: They are growing faster.

They are growing for a whole lot of different reasons. But without the proper coercion, support, and encouragement, they cannot grow to become competitive and internationally successful.

Will this bill achieve that purpose? I refer to a little quotation that came from Jim Anderton, back in 2002. He described the purpose and aim of Industry New Zealand—which is to be put into New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—as being to lift New Zealand’s growth rate fast enough to catch up with Australia’s, and to stop the relative economic decline of New Zealand, compared with Australia, that has occurred over the past 30 years. We have failed to do that. Treasury has had an opportunity to review the purpose of this bill, and to ask whether the purpose will be achieved and the bill will help New Zealand to grow on a relative basis to Australia. The answer, I tell members, is that Treasury does not think that will be the case.

When Dr Cullen delivered his very, very bland Budget just a few weeks ago, he put out his—or rather, Treasury’s—long-term economic growth forecasts for New Zealand.

💬 Hon David Carter: Halved.

Not only have they been halved but New Zealand’s long-term economic growth forecast is for 2.5 percent growth for the next 8, 9, or 10 years, and that is probably being very generous. That is made up of 1.5 percent productivity growth—below Australia’s; in fact, Australia’s is 1.75 percent to 2 percent. Every year Australia will grow at 0.5 percent more than we will, as a country. Our position relative to Australia’s is, in fact, not improving—it is declining, and it will continue to get worse.

We are supporting this bill simply because we are a business-focused party, and because we hate to see the wastage in expenditure that goes on when there is more than one Government partner doing the same job, as we have seen for the last 4 years. We know why Industry New Zealand was set up. It was set up not necessarily to help companies, but because that was the price of the coalition arrangement. This bill was not necessary; this could have happened already. In fact, this bill is a waste of the House’s time. We could have had that help for companies earlier on, right there in Trade New Zealand—but we did not have it in Trade New Zealand because that was the price that Jim Anderton extracted from Helen Clark, when he went into coalition with her. He wanted to have something he could pin things to: Industry New Zealand.

Jim Anderton has pinned a few interesting things to Industry New Zealand. He has given a few grants up and down the land, but have they been successful? No.

💬 Hon David Carter: Sovereign Yachts.

Sovereign Yachts, in my very own electorate, was to be a triumph for the “jobs machine”. But no, it has not been successful. Has Eternal Waters been successful? No. Has that lived up to the purpose defined in Part 1 of this bill? No. Other people have been given money, but have gone broke before they have had the chance to take the second tranche.

The purpose of this bill is to support the development of New Zealand industry, but if we are to be successful in that we will have to do one thing that is not defined in the purpose of this bill—to actually listen to Business New Zealand. I talked a little earlier on about the Irish Development Authority, which was an interactive agency in Ireland.

I want to talk specifically to clause 3(1) in these 5 minutes, and then I will take the opportunity a little later to talk to clause 3(2). I want to talk about the issue of the Government developing internationally competitive businesses. First of all, I acknowledge the contribution made by Ken Shirley, the ACT member, in discussing whether the Government should be involved in that area. I want the member to understand that there is a debate to be had about that, and it is certainly not a hard and fast matter one way or the other. But given that the Government has taken the decision to be involved in helping small businesses to become established, to grow and develop, and then to become internationally competitive, I ask this Minister, with regard to the purpose of this bill, to please do that properly.

I say to the Minister in the chair that I criticise him more for the way he lets his department operate than for anything else. I tell him that it is just not working. The bureaucracy created when the Minister tries to help—

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Which department?

I am talking about clause 3(1), which is about getting a small business established, developed, and made internationally competitive.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Which department isn’t working? Tell me. Name it.

OK, I will tell the Minister. If he listens, I will tell him what happens. I want to refer the Minister to an organisation called the Methodist Employment Generation Fund. If the Minister has not heard of it he should have, because if we are to do this sort of stuff that fund is an example of something that works, compared with the Minister’s department, which does not.

This is what happens when people go into the ministry. They are asked to fill out some forms, and then a whole lot of bureaucrats come around and ask them to fill out more forms. People fill out several lots of different forms. If I am trying to get a business development grant, I must fill out all those forms. There is a certain amount of money set aside and finally, if I am lucky, my name comes out of the hat and I receive a grant. So I am given a grant and away I go. I have a grant for 12 months to get myself started and on the way. I have to put a contribution in, so I go down the road and arrange with the bank to mortgage my house and whatever else I can offer.

But if I receive some funding from the Minister’s department to get me on the way, this is what happens. I get started, I get the business going, and it sort of gets on its way. Then, after 12 months goes by, I think that I am ready to take the next step. I think that I need to keep moving and to grow. I want to employ more people. So I think I will go back to the ministry, because the Minister said that he was there to help small businesses to grow and create employment. But when I go back to the Minister’s department, and say—

💬 David Benson-Pope: Which department?

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: It’s an agency.

Well, there are agencies. Members can call them what they like; they are the things the Minister is responsible for—OK? He is there to try to help small businesses, is he not?

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: They were just asking which one it is. That’s the very point: there’s too many of them.

That is the damn trouble. This Minister has so many bureaucracies that he—the Minister—does not know which one is responsible for that. He has to ask me, for goodness’ sake! Somebody who goes and asks for help is given the run-around from his bureaucracy, because he or she does not damn well know which agency to go to.

But if people do finally latch on to someone who gives them a grant, what happens? They go back in 12 months’ time because they have got started, and they think maybe they are on their way and will make it. So they decide to put their names in the hat. They receive some more forms, and they spend a frustrating 6 months filling out a whole lot of forms and making some contacts overseas, so they can perhaps sell the products they are making, whatever they are. And what happens?

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Nothing!

That is absolutely right. People do not have another shot at the funding. There is no more support. The officials say they are sorry, but they have already given those people a grant, and now they have to go along and give a grant to new applicants, because the Government might receive some more votes from them. So those people who have already received grants are on the scrapheap—failed.

All that has happened is that those people’s expectations have been built up. They thought they were going somewhere. The taxpayers have wasted $20,000, $50,000, or whatever sum of money it may have been, because that proposal does not get finished. As a consequence of that, the Minister should never have started assisting it. His agencies are unlike the Methodist Employment Generation Fund, which stays with people. If that fund gets involved, it stays with people. They do not receive a grant from it.

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill. The first point I want to make as we talk about handouts, and the largesse and generosity of the Minister, is that every time he gives a handout to any organisation around New Zealand, that money was first taken from the taxpayers.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: That’s right.

Ken Shirley says that that is right, but I sadly think that many, many members on the other side of the Chamber tend to forget that. It is all very well to be generous with this money, and to grab photo opportunities up and down the country, but I say to the Minister—[Interruption] Sorry, the Minister says there are no photo opportunities.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: I said you hate them.

No, I tell the Minister that I do not think it is a matter of whether I love photo opportunities or whether I hate them. The important thing is not whether the Minister loves or hates them, but that every one comes at a cost. It comes at a cost to some other person who has paid taxes so that Mr Anderton can have his photograph taken when handing out a cheque. National certainly supports the bill, and when I look at its purposes, particularly in clause 3(1), we are happy to support anything that will make it easier for New Zealand businesses to operate in New Zealand, and to be internationally competitive. But the thing that staggers me—and I certainly hope that the Minister may take a call and explain whether this is right—are some figures that I have picked up from the New Zealand Herald, so they might not be right. It says that in this current year the operating budget for the Minister’s agency will be $45.89 million, and the budget for the programmes and awards it manages will be $50.59 million.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: It is actually $130 million.

They give out $130 million and spend approximately a third of that to give it out.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: That’s right—feathering the bureaucratic nest.

It’s actually worse than that.

Well, the Minister had better take a call and explain these figures, because if we are spending approximately a third of every dollar of this taxpayer money in processing the applications and deciding who will be the beneficiary of this largesse, then the Minister needs to take a call and convince this Parliament that that is the most efficient way to operate. I looked through some of the grants that have been made to date, and in one example the Minister made a grant for $4,500 to Auckland University to develop non-toxic body paint for Māori performing arts.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: That’s probably a ticket to Melbourne.

It could be. It would be a very expensive ticket to Melbourne—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Yes, but it’s for expensive hotels.

My colleague says it is for expensive hotels. But there are others that are quite interesting. We have had a series of articles in the Christchurch Press recently in which Rod Donald is railing against the existence of the Warehouse, and how it is an affront to New Zealand’s culture. But—hang on!—the Government that he supports gave $75,000 to the Warehouse—

They need it.

The Warehouse does need it. It has had some interesting profit projections lately. The chief executive left quite suddenly, but not before he had been able to bank $75,000—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Does the member know why?

No, I do not know why.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: He has been selling non-toxic body paint at $2 a time.

And they are having trouble getting $4,500 of taxpayers’ money back—it could be that. But there are other interesting payouts that Mr Anderton is overseeing. There was $100,000 granted to a gaming-machine distributor. I thought I had heard Mr Anderton railing against the scourge of gambling, but here he is overseeing $100,000 of hard-earned taxpayer money that is being given to a distributor of gaming machines. And then I came upon another one that was really interesting—EDS. That is a huge company that has an annual turnover similar to the gross domestic product of New Zealand. Mr Anderton felt sorry for it; it needed to receive a gift—

How much?

It was $1.5 million.

The member who has just spoken, and others who have contributed from the National and ACT parties, have shown a complete misunderstanding of the whole process of advice and operating services that both Trade New Zealand and Industry New Zealand deliver to individual companies and sectors of industry. For example, if members want to criticise Industry New Zealand for spending a third of its budget on operating services—which is what we are talking about—we are talking about people who are working actively in the regions to assist regional economic development, those 46 economic development agencies that are assisting with their expertise and getting companies investment-ready, companies that are in high-growth mode, to take opportunities that they were not able to take before. Expert advice has been given by officers of Industry New Zealand who have come from the private sector with the expertise that they are delivering back for the growth of those companies. That is what that money is being spent on.

The Opposition criticises grants going out—so one cannot give grants to anyone, but one cannot give any specialist advice or assistance, either! So what can one do? Nothing! And nothing is what that party did for the 9 years it was in Government, in terms of assisting the industry and business development of New Zealand. If we are going to criticise Industry New Zealand, we should criticise Trade New Zealand. I have heard members say that Trade New Zealand is a great outfit—but Trade New Zealand spent almost its entire budget on operating services, and made very few grants, at all. One could say that nearly 100 percent of Trade New Zealand’s budget was devoted to operating services, yet we have not heard a word of criticism. The reason is that some members do not know the difference. They do not know how either of those organisations operates.

In fact, Mr Carter, who rails about the operation of those agencies in the north, does not know the difference between the Ministry of Economic Development, Industry New Zealand, and Trade New Zealand. He does not have a clue. When he was asked to state the difference, he said: “Why ask me? I don’t know. I’m just criticising everything.” That is par for the course.

The partnership between the Government of New Zealand, industry and business in New Zealand, and the regional, local, and community areas of New Zealand, has never been in better shape than under the auspices of this Government and under the developmental operations of Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand, which are now operating as a one-stop shop for New Zealand. The sooner we get this bill through, the sooner the game-playing of the Opposition will stop. I suggest to those members that they should put up, and that if the National Party ever becomes the Government in New Zealand again, it would demolish those agencies and it would stop regional and business development and the partnership. I challenge them to say that. If they say that, they will never become the Government again, which is almost certain, anyway.

Members could well be outraged by what we just heard from the Minister in the chair, Jim Anderton. He really confirmed our worst fears. That is what he has done, I say to the Minister. To start with, he said that a third of the budget of Industry New Zealand has been spent on operating services. What happened to the other two-thirds of the budget? What is the spending there? He did not answer the basic questions. I ask the Minister, in his next call—I hope he takes another call, because it is sad that many Ministers in the chair sit there like maturing cheeses and never take a call in the Committee stage—to answer these simple questions. The Warehouse is a very successful business, and a tremendous one. I do not support the Greens’ position, at all. I applaud the Warehouse. It is doing a fantastic job and it is very successful. Why did it require a grant of taxpayers’ money for $75,000? That is question No. 1.

Question No. 2 is why was a $100,000 grant given to a gaming-machine interest? I ask the Minister why that was. He should get up and give us the explanation in his next call. The next question is a big one. $1.5 million of taxpayers’ money was given to a multinational corporate—and, again, there is nothing wrong with multinational corporates. All I say is that they are big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves. They do not need $1.5 million of New Zealand taxpayers’ money given out by a bunch of bureaucrats in Wellington. That is outrageous, and I want the Minister to tell us and to tell the country why Industry New Zealand gave a $1.5 million grant to EDS .

We are owed a response to that question. Those examples go to the root of our concern. Is it the role of the Government to pick winners in business? ACT believes that we have got past that. We left that garbage back in the 1980s with the Rogernomics reforms. The Government’s message is: “I am from the Government; I am here to help you.” The Government does not have any money, whatsoever. The only money the Government has is money that it takes off individuals and off enterprises in the belief that it can spend that money more wisely than those individuals or those businesses could themselves.

There are some functions that the Government has to carry out. The Government does need to determine regulatory frameworks. That is the legitimate business of the Government. It is the role of the Government to ensure that we negotiate with other Governments to break down tariff protections. So there is a role for it, but it is not the business of the Government to set up commercial trading enterprises. Members need only read the purpose of the bill, which is to set up and promote commerce and business in New Zealand. That is not the business of the Government. The private sector can do that by itself quite adequately.

I am a bit dismayed by some of the messages that I am getting from National. It has a policy that will create “Investment New Zealand”, which will be another big monster. I say to National that it should change tack now, because that is fundamentally wrong in principle. Certainly, when ACT is in coalition with the National Party, we will not favour that proposal, at all.

I say to the Minister that the key thing is that he owes an explanation to the House. He should tell us why $1.5 million has to be taken off struggling small businesses and hard-working battlers in this country so that the Government can give grants to the Warehouse and EDS. What business really needs is the Government to get the fundamentals right. What do we know? One of the biggest problems is compliance costs. This Government did a review of compliance costs and came up with something like 40 recommendations that needed to be addressed in relation to the Resource Management Act alone. Not one of those recommendations was implemented. Just a month ago, in this Chamber, we passed the Resource Management Amendment Act (No 2), and not one of those recommendations arising from the review of compliance costs was put into that legislation.

What is the point of saying that the Government is here to help people, when the biggest help that could be given to business would be to address things like compliance costs, and the Government itself commissioned, at incredible expense, a review of costs, came up with recommendations, and failed to implement them?

I move, That the question be now put.

The Green Party supports the Government’s role of encouraging New Zealand businesses to be internationally competitive. We have no issue with that. We have always supported that role.

💬 Hon David Carter: Including the Warehouse?

I will come to the Warehouse later. The issue we have with the framework of this bill is that it puts economic activity above and beyond the environment and society. The Government may claim that it is concerned about sustainable development, just as we are. What we are inviting the Government to do is to back that rhetoric with some substance by amending this bill to ensure that the Government takes a sustainable development approach to the activities of the new organisation, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. The title itself is a mouthful, but I understand what the Government is trying to achieve with that title. What it is not doing is ensuring that the purpose of that organisation is not only to support the development of internationally competitive New Zealand business but also to support New Zealand business that engages in ecologically and socially sustainable activities.

That is the first amendment we will be putting up to this part, because we are committed to a sustainable development approach. We would have thought the Government would have been, too. We find it extraordinarily ironic that in January the Government can launch its Sustainable Development for New Zealand: Programme of Action and that in March the Hon Marian Hobbs can launch a programme for the implementation of triple bottom line reporting on our environmental, economic, and social performance, but that when it comes to the Government’s economic engine-room—the vehicle the Government is using to drive economic growth—it is not prepared to incorporate its rhetoric in the legislation to set up this organisation. It is happy to do something around the edges. It is happy to do the soft-focus stuff by bringing in the sustainable development strategy for fresh water, for sustainable cities, for renewable energy, and for child and youth development, as the Minister for the Environment said in question time today, but it is not prepared to come in at the sharp end and to say that it is committed to supporting industries, enterprise, and business initiatives that are not only economically viable but also ecologically and socially sustainable.

That is the challenge we put before this Government. We cannot support this bill unless the Government takes up that challenge and backs its rhetoric with some substance. At the moment this bill truly represents the gulf between the talk, the rhetoric, and the substance. Even in Industry New Zealand’s own glossy publication, Venture, it talks about sustainable development. In a recent issue in March it said: “Sustainable growth has become a catchcry but the wider goal of sustainable development is the more important target.” Despite saying that, the Government is not prepared to change the purpose of this bill and it is not prepared to incorporate sustainability principles in this bill. That is our second amendment: to introduce sustainability principles.

The principles we have put in our amendment are identical to what is already in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act. It is not new to the Government. It just seems to be happy to do it when it comes to energy conservation and efficiency, but it is not prepared to grasp the nettle when it comes to economic development. The principles are very similar to what the Government has put in the Local Government Act. So the Government is happy to put in the purpose of the Local Government Act that local authorities need to play a broad role in promoting the social, economic, environment, and cultural well-being of the communities by taking the sustainable development approach, but it is not prepared to apply the same approach to its own economic activities.

That indicates to us that this Government is engaged in “greenwash”. It is happy to strut the world stage claiming that New Zealand is a leader in sustainable development, but when it comes to putting its money where its mouth is, back home, it backs off fast.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Is that “greenwash” or hogwash?

Well, I would say “greenwash”, but Mr Shirley can talk hogwash when his turn comes. Our issue is “greenwash”. Our issue is the Government living up to the statements it makes about sustainability. Our issue is to get the framework right so that we can have some confidence.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you Mr Chairman. May I compliment you on your chairmanship. Because of the importance of this bill it is really important that the Labour Party does not ride roughshod by shutting down the debate. We are disappointed, because I thought the member who just sat down, Rod Donald, would comment on his support for the bill and the Warehouse. But he says to wait, and he will talk about it. As usual, that is the Greens: all promises and no delivery.

Let me come back to two issues in Part 1. In the purpose in Part 1 the bill states: “The purpose of this Act is to support the development of internationally competitive New Zealand business by establishing New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.” I invite the public to remember that just now my colleague the Hon David Carter named two examples of where those grants have been handed out, and the Minister stood up, obviously not very proud.

That was interesting. The Hon Jim Anderton got all excited and upset. He stood up, and then proceeded to lecture us on the differences of operational funding. But I thought it was obvious—the public would have noticed—the Minister was not proud of any of that funding that was dished out by his organisation. That is why he never proceeded to defend that or explain to us why $75,000 given to the Warehouse did not quite fit into the bill’s intention of making it an internationally competitive company.

The Greens, for a start, claimed that they would not support that, and we also questioned why the Warehouse, already accepted as a successful company, should get a development grant, or whatever, to encourage business growth. It seems to me that a company of the size of the Warehouse would actually understand the strategy of business growth. I wish the Minister would reflect on that, because the Warehouse knew that the shareholders would send a sharp message to the Warehouse through share prices when it went off the rails. Unfortunately, this Labour Government did not get the message that it does not have to subsidise. It does not have to create corporate welfare. Assistance is fine in terms of reducing compliance costs, and helping some industry at the start-up phase with market information; but to create an industry or business welfare, in effect, is hindering growth.

But I find the other issue interesting. I thought some Labour members should have questioned it. The purpose of this bill states that this organisation is “responsible for facilitating ... the development and implementation of strategies, programmes, and activities for trade, industry, and regional development …”. That is fine, but it is “as directed by the Government.”! I remember distinctly, 2 years ago, in a Commerce Committee meeting when we were earnestly examining officials from Industry New Zealand, who promised Labour members—and I remember particularly the member for Rotorua, Steve Chadwick—who were very earnest, and saying “But you do mean that the central government and local community groups will operate in a genuine partnership?”: no, we are not going to dictate to the regions. She said that if Rotorua believes that a certain forestry project is actually a winner, the Government will talk to those people, listen to them, and operate as a fifty-fifty partnership. I invite the Minister to take a call and explain to the House and the business community how Labour came up with directions for businesses. The Minister should take a call and explain clearly and in detail what the directions of the Government are in this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

I also want to compliment your chairmanship of this Committee, and the very extraordinary way you sensed that the Opposition had moved a number of very sensible amendments to this part. It was appropriate that we had another call. I have moved a significant number of amendments to Part 1 of this bill, and I will require my colleagues to take a call in order to explain some of those amendments. Just to refresh members’ memory of where we are at, this is a bill that seeks to amalgamate the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand business support functions. The Opposition has made a very coherent point that there are at least 32 different grants and funding organisations that provide support for business incentives in New Zealand. It is our view that those authorities and agencies should also be incorporated in this bill. We believe there would be significant savings to taxpayers. Members will be surprised to know that it totals about $800 million worth of various funds and support available for business and commercial development in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Does that include Te Māngai Pāho?

That does not include Te Māngai Pāho. So it might be $900 million of support—it is probably more now, because this figure of $800 million is 2 years old—that is available through either the science or commercial incentives that this Government offers. The point we are making is that all of those supports should be available through a one-stop shop. Mr Carter makes a good point. That money should be in the pockets of taxpaying New Zealanders, who are probably best able to do something about it. We believe that lower taxes and less regulation are the things that will encourage business in New Zealand.

The National Party is the one party that has done something about that, when we were the Government. We brought in lower taxes for working New Zealanders, and less regulation. But this bill does nothing about those two matters. So we have proposed a number of amendments—first of all, to the purpose clause. We want to make it quite clear that this bill is the first step in a plan that a National Government in power would have—that is, to incorporate a number of other funding agencies within an authority called “Investment New Zealand”. We want to make sure this bill provides for those other agencies to be put into the legislation.

We are also concerned that some of the corporate disciplines that private enterprise benefits from, and which private enterprise people would bring to an organisation as proposed by the Government, are weakened by parts of this bill—particularly Part 1. The use of the word “member” lessens the commercial imperatives on those who are on the governing body of this new authority. They are “directors” and they must be in no doubt that there are requirements on them consistent with those they would have under the Companies Act. Although it might be a subtle change, it is important to send those who are controlling Industry New Zealand a very clear message that they are to behave in a commercial way. We also want to make sure that the opportunities for intervention by Ministers are minimised, and we have moved a number of amendments. The very point we on this side of the Chamber are making is: why stop with only these two agencies?

💬 Hon David Carter: Yes.

As Mr David Carter mentioned, there is $130 million worth of grants, and $45 million worth of administrative overheads. It does not take a lot of brainpower to realise that if one could spread that administrative burden over a different level of granting structure, or change the structure in order to reduce the administrative overhead, one would get a lot more money, which could be used for either returning to taxpayers through lower taxes, or through better-targeted company support.

💬 John Carter: That’s the point.

That is the point we have been making. There is a multiplicity of agencies. I quoted, in my first call, the experience of a major business leader in New Zealand, who talked about the sheer duplication at present. He sometimes has representatives from at least five or six Government agencies knocking on his door, offering to give him money.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: No, to give him his own money back.

To give him his own money back—basically, to give him the money of hard-working, diligent New Zealanders. We say that that is not efficient.

I move, That the question be now put.

In speaking to Part 1, and in particular looking at clause 3(2), which is about the need for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to cooperate with industry, central and local government, and relevant community groups, I commend the Minister for his initiative with regard to the public message that was put out on 12 March 2003 by another Minister relating to the future development of Whenuapai, and a message to the Whenuapai Ratepayers and Residents Association at the meeting on that date, which talked about “jointly leading the establishment of a working-group, which will recommend a process by which decisions will eventually be made. This group will consult with a range of Governments, local governments, and community interests. Initial reports are expected from this group by the middle of this year.” Well, it is now the middle of this year, or almost. It is 17 June, so I expect we should now be getting initial reports from this group.

I ask the Minister where the reports are on the future of Whenuapai, because this is exactly what clause 3(2) is about—cooperation with “industry, central and local government, and relevant community groups”, talking about strategies, programmes, activities for trade, industry, and regional development. If this minority Labour Party Government has any credibility, we would like to know what is happening with these reports at Whenuapai. Interestingly enough, the Waitakere City Council called a meeting about two or three Saturdays ago—

💬 John Key: Yes.

—and I expect my friend John Key, the member for Helensville, received an invitation. I am informed that three members of Parliament responded to say they would go. Three Opposition members of Parliament said they would go; I think about 17 or 18 people were invited. As I understand it—and I hope the Labour members of Parliament will prove me wrong—no Labour Party member of Parliament accepted the invitation to go to that meeting. Only three Opposition members of Parliament—myself, and perhaps my friend John Key—

💬 John Key: Yes.

Yes, he accepted the invitation to go, as I would expect. Where were the Labour Party members of Parliament to discuss questions of regional development, implementation of strategies, programmes, and the like? Labour members are very good in election year. They would have been there in June of an election year, but we are about 2 years out from an election and they are nowhere to be seen. I would have expected—seeing I have raised this issue—that Lynne Pillay, the member for Waitakere, would speak on the question of regional development and this bill. I would have expected the Minister of Local Government, Chris Carter, to speak on this bill. I would have expected the member for New Lynn, that well-known resident of Herne Bay, David Cunliffe, a Minister, also to speak on it. But where are they? They are silent on this issue. But I, and others from New Zealand First, will be making an issue throughout the debate on this question of “co-operation with industry, central and local government, and relevant community groups”.

In my view, this is a classic example of what is intended by this bill in terms of clause 3. It is a classic example of the Waitakere City Council, the Rodney District Council, and the North Shore City Council working together to create an initiative and to have to plan a strategy, to put forward programmes and activities for trade and industry, regional development, and the like in the Whenuapai area. We were promised a report in the middle of the year. It has not happened, and I can, in this call, assure the Minister that this is not the last he will hear from New Zealand First on this issue, because really it is a cornerstone of our policy—one that does not get terribly much publicity, I must admit—to encourage trade and development. We regard trade as New Zealand’s lifeblood. New Zealand First’s economic policy prescription is based on a partnership—and we have heard a lot about partnership—with the people in promoting sustainable, export-led economic growth that will lead to job creation and enable the savings that will facilitate our social progress. That is what I believe this bill is all about, and that is why we are supporting it.

This bill is about New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. We supported the entity 2 or 3 years ago. It has failed up until now, but it is only because of the lack of support from the Government to the staff. We know it has excellent staff. All they need is support and encouragement from the Government, and perhaps a Minister who is more enthusiastic, younger, more vital, and capable of making the appropriate contribution in the community.

💬 Darren Hughes: Come on!

I do not mean someone quite so young as the member who is interjecting, but someone somewhere in-between would obviously be more suitable. New Zealand First in Government would provide such a person. The people of west Auckland, Waitakere City, and North Shore can look upon this legislation as being a classic example.

I move, That the question be now put.