New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill

The National Party in Opposition has prepared another number of amendments to this part of the bill, and we do that for this reason. We think it is a good idea to combine as many as possible of the agencies that provide business support. Over $800 million a year is provided by hard-working, ordinary New Zealand taxpayers to support innovation and business development in New Zealand. On this side of the Committee we say that too much is going to the bureaucracy.

We heard in the previous debate that Industry New Zealand gives out $130 million worth of grants, but its administrative overhead is $45 million. That means that for every dollar that hard-working, ordinary New Zealand taxpayers entrust to Mr Anderton and the "jobs machine", 35c goes to the bureaucrats, with the remainder going to business. The National Party says that is inefficient and ineffective, and that the money could be better spent elsewhere within that sector, or should stay within the pockets of ordinary New Zealanders.

The problem with Part 2 is that it is overly prescriptive. It gives the Government too much influence in the management of Industry New Zealand. The one thing we have learnt from the international experience of such organisations is that they need firm financial management and good business practices. My colleague Mr John Key, who is an experienced director of a multinational corporation with an involvement in investment in Ireland, talked about his experience of what is involved there. We oppose parts of this bill because of its overly prescriptive nature.

The purpose of this bill is to bring together Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand, but the National Party says what about the 32 other different funding and grant organisations, such as Investment New Zealand or Trade New Zealand. What about a number of the Crown research institutes and the funding that they have available for innovation? What about the Venture Investment Fund, the Grants for Private Sector Research and Development, the Research for Industry Fund, Technology New Zealand, the New Economy Research Fund, the Supporting Promising Individuals fund, the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, the Science and Innovation Advisory Council, the Electronic Commerce Action Team and Network, the Developing More Highly Skilled New Zealanders Through Adult Literacy fund, the Talented New Zealanders Fund, the Celebrating a Culture of Success fund, the major events support fund, the World Class New Zealanders fund, the Industrial Supplies Office, the Business Cluster Pilot Programme fund, the Regional Partnerships Fund, the sector strategies fund, the Major Investment Service, the Business Growth Service, the incubator development unit, the investment-ready fund, the business enterprise schemes, the business schemes, and Industry New Zealand itself?

The list is unbelievably long. It adds up to $800 million. There must be a more efficient and effective way of spending taxpayers’ money on providing delivery of public services in this area.

We have moved a number of amendments that are designed to do a couple of things. They are designed, first of all, to limit and hinder the ability of this minority Labour-Progressive Government to interfere with the distribution of this money. We do not want to see $75,000 going to the Warehouse. We do not want to see hundreds of thousands of dollars of ours spent on a project like Sovereign Yachts. We do not want this Government’s fingers anywhere near the pie, and we are moving amendments to that end. We are moving amendments to hinder ministerial involvement. We are moving amendments to clarify employment practices within this organisation. We are also moving a number of amendments to unshackle this body from the clutches of this Government. This bill sets out in minute detail the functions and purposes of this new entity in a way that I have never seen before. It is overly prescriptive.

We have just witnessed an extraordinary situation in this Chamber. The establishment parties, Labour, National, and their hangers-on, have all just come out against sustainable development. I have to ask the Minister in the chair, Judith Tizard, how a Government that claims to be an international leader in sustainability can oppose the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise organisation’s taking into account such things as the health and safety of people and communities. How could it oppose it taking into account the need to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment, the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations, and implementing the principles of the Treaty of the Waitangi?

I particularly ask the Minister in the chair those questions, because she was at the launch of the Sustainable Development for New Zealand: Programme of Action in January, in Auckland. She even put out a press release in which she said that the sustainable development programme of action had benefits for Auckland. More than most Ministers, she should understand what this bill needs to do to ensure that the Government’s economic delivery arm actually operates consistently with the Government’s whole-of-Government approach towards triple bottom line accountability and towards sustainable development. I hope that she will give serious consideration to the amendments that the Green Party is putting up for this part.

Before I talk about the amendments, I have to say I am very disappointed that I was denied the opportunity of taking a second call on Part 1, especially as we had supported a part by part debate. We were expecting a couple of calls, especially as we are the only real opposition to this bill. I think the Greens and ACT are the only parties voting against it, despite all the amendments that National is putting up.

I turn to the Greens amendments, and say to the Government that it is not too late to take some steps in the right direction. The starting point is, of course, clause 9, “Functions”. It is an interesting clause, to say the least. The only time the words “sustainable” and “environment” appear in the same sentence is in clause 9(1)(a). Unfortunately, the words are not in the right order, as that paragraph is all about contributing to “a supportive environment for sustainable economic development”. I must say that is one improvement that I managed to achieve at the select committee; this bill had originally been about sustainable economic growth, but we have got the word “development” in there. But the bill is still focused on the economy. It does not recognise that we need to keep the economy, society, the environment, and, for that matter, our culture operating in harmony to have genuine sustainable development. So our amendment to clause 9(1)(a) is to omit the word “economic”. That does not mean we are opposed to the economy. We are just saying that sustainable development encompasses the economy as well as the environment and as well as society, and we invite the Minister to support that amendment.

We also encourage her to support our second amendment, which is to insert the words “the community economic sector” into subparagraph (i) of clause 9(1)(a). If anyone understands the importance of adding the community economic sector, it is this Minister, who is the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. She understands the importance of the community sector, the creative sector. That sector should have the chance to be part of the collaborative networks and partnerships between central government, local government, and the other players in ensuring that we have a vibrant, sustainable economy.

The same logic applies to the next two amendments, where we want the words “local communities” inserted, and also the words “relevant environmental, tangata whenua, and community groups”. All the amendments are designed to encourage the sense of wholeness that we need when we are developing our society. There is no point in our developing one part, the economy, at the expense of others parts—the environment and society.

There is one key clause that I want to expand on, and I will touch on it now, just in case somebody replaces the Chair and I miss out on a second call. I want to touch on how vitally important it is that the functions of the new organisation embrace import substitution. At the moment, the bill provides for the new Crown entity to contribute to increased exports from, and investments in, New Zealand, and that is very fine. There are a lot of exports that we would like to see encouraged, particularly in the organic sector. But this bill flies on one wing. This Crown entity will be trying to fly on one wing because there is absolutely nothing in this bill to provide the balance to encourage import substitution. So we have put an amendment to add paragraphs after clause 9(1)(d). The amendment would enable the new body to actively, passionately, and forcefully contribute to increased import substitution.

In speaking to Part 2 I notice that it has 67 clauses, so it is a very, very big part. I would expect that members get about an hour and a half at the very least—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Two hours.

The member says 2 hours, but I hope we do get the full opportunity to debate this very, very lengthy part.

Part 2 sets out, amongst many other things, the functions of this new organisation, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. They include to “contribute to a supportive environment for sustainable economic development by ... fostering collaborative networks and partnerships between central government, local government, industry, trade unions, regions, education and research organisations,” and suchlike. I note the insertion of the reference to trade unions, and I again congratulate the Commerce Committee on that. Trade unions are a very important part of our community, and it is important that Parliament recognises the contribution they can make to, obviously, trade and enterprise, because they are an integral part of trade and enterprise and developing products.

The issue I have been referring to throughout this afternoon’s debate is a classic example of how we could implement the New Zealand trade and enterprise legislation through collaborative networks and partnerships between central and local government, and that is the development of the Whenuapai area. Members of this House may be unaware that that area, which is currently the Royal New Zealand Air Force Auckland base, consists of 311 hectares located in the Brigham basin—15 percent of the land area of the basin. Sixty hectares of the base are vacant and could be suitable for other uses. Current expectations are that it will take 5 years before the Royal New Zealand Air Force fully departs. So we are in a perfect situation to implement the New Zealand trade and enterprise legislation; to have a collaborative network and partnership between central government, local government, industry, trade unions, and the like in the future development of this area.

The area is vital to Auckland, and it is very, very important to Waitakere and the North Shore. Currently, it is estimated that the airbase contributes $60 million per year to the Waitakere and North Shore economies. It is Waitakere’s single biggest employer, with 1,420 fulltime-equivalent employees. There are 453,000 people currently living within 16 kilometres of Whenuapai. My guess earlier on of about 450,000 was not bad! This number is virtually identical to the 442,000 people living within 16 kilometres of Mangere. Twenty-seven percent of the families within 10 kilometres of Whenuapai have an income of over $70,000, compared with only 14 percent of those within 10 kilometres of Mangere. Those are some statistics that show the importance of this area, the dramatic change there will be in Waitakere City and North Shore when the Royal New Zealand Air Force base finally closes—presuming that it ever does—the effect that that will have on the area, and the need for some involvement to coordinate development in the area.

The Auckland Regional Council has also been involved, with the Auckland regional economic development strategy plan and suchlike. The comments are that the strategy has a framework that combines eight elements, which connect the region with the world through an outward focus. Platform 5 is to provide a high-quality living environment. It refers to initiatives such as a regional business land-use strategy addressing land supply and infrastructure for existing and new businesses, and to implement regional strategies that lead land use, environment, and infrastructure development. This is a crucial area to the development of Auckland and, dare I say it, even New Zealand, because industry that is developed in Auckland helps to pay the taxes, the health bills, and all the other things that help Auckland and the rest of the country.

Currently, members will know that there is an upper harbour corridor that links Waitakere City to North Shore City via Greenhithe, and it is identified as a strategic transport corridor in the regional land transport strategy. Transit New Zealand has started construction of a new State Highway 18 motorway link through that corridor, and it is planned to be completed in 2006-07. As a matter of interest, I remember when the existing upper harbour bridge was opened around September 1975. I went over it that day, and I thought what a wonderful connection it was. How empty it seemed to be on subsequent days when, as a member of Parliament, I used to get the weekly indication of how much traffic had gone over the upper harbour bridge. That is barely 28 years ago, and we have seen how that area has developed. Obviously, there is potential for the area to develop to that extent, and more, again. New Zealand First is supporting this legislation.

Clause 7 has the most incredibly obvious statement, which the Minister should elucidate a little for the Committee: “This section establishes New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.” I need to know, and I think the Committee should know, why that has been put into the bill. Quite clearly, the whole bill is about that very purpose. Why is that in Part 2 and not in clause 3, “Purpose”, in Part 1?

The next issue relates to the Crown entity status now being put upon this organisation in relation to the Public Finance Act. We can take it then that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise effectively is a Government department, as opposed to a Crown-owned company or an entity that operates in a totally commercial fashion. That brings us to clause 9, “Functions”, which has a very nebulous statement, “contribute to a supportive environment for sustainable economic development by—(i) fostering collaborative networks and partnerships …”. That clause goes through very wordy statements expressing what this organisation is supposed to do. I know that it is a bit of a trend these days for any organisation to give itself a brief to go to the area it thinks it might be involved in, without too many specifics. It seems to me that there are absolutely no specifics in the bill whatsoever.

Would the Minister explain to the Committee whether subclauses (1) to (3) of clause 9 provide for any constraint on the activities of this body, and in particular, what we can take from subparagraphs (i) to (iii) in subclause (1)(a). What does “provide a conduit for input and advice from industry, trade unions, local government and relevant community groups, regions, education and research organisations, potential investors, and individual enterprises on programmes to implement the Government’s policies for economic, industry, and regional development” mean? Can the Minister tell us what that means. Does it mean to provide a conduit for potential investors in regional development? If that is the case, then that is fine. It should be clear, but it is not clear in the bill, because it states that the activity is only for input and advice from those organisations.

It seems to me that if the bill is supposed to facilitate all those wonderful things happening—that word alone is a bit of a buzz word—then it should be much clearer that the entity has to be engaged in an activity, rather than simply provide advice and make that advice part of the conduit.

Further, it is interesting that clause 11, “Capacity and powers”, states that the new body, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise “has all the rights, powers, and privileges of a natural person of full age and capacity;”. Considerable rights, powers, and privileges are given to a natural person of full age and capacity. The Minister should tell the Committee how specifically that empowerment will work in favour of the new entity. The clause states further that it “has the statutory powers conferred by this Act or any other Act.” That leads us to search through the bill for specific statutory powers that will be given to the new entity, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. Are any statutory powers given?

We are here debating a very large part—[Interruption] It is all right for Mr Harry Duynhoven—he had nothing to say until I got up to speak. Then he sits on the cross benches trying to pretend that he is in the ACT party, helping me with my speech.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: No, I have no desire to join your party.

He says he has no desire to be in the same caucus with Parekura Horomia, and I can understand that.

Part 2 is huge. It is the meat, the sandwiches, the sausage—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: And the mustard.

—and the mustard of this bill. I have a question for the Minister in the chair. Why are we having this bill?

💬 John Key: And the sizzle.

There is no sizzle; it is Judith Tizard. I can promise members that there is no sizzle about this bill. Again, why are we having this bill? It is because Industry New Zealand has proved an utter failure. This Government said it had to get rid of Neil McKay, because of the mad, bad decisions he was making handing out taxpayers’ cash. But the Government was not allowed a golden handshake. It was not allowed to get caught up with the Employment Relations Act, like every other business in New Zealand. So it had to hatch a plan to get rid of Neil McKay, the bright boy of Industry New Zealand and regional development, according to Jim Anderton.

💬 Rod Donald: Long gone—on 27 March.

So it had to hatch a plan to see him got rid of. It cannot fire anyone in New Zealand any longer.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Restructure!

So it has to restructure a person out of a job. Harry Duynhoven knows and he agrees. He says Rodney Hide is hitting the nail on the head one more time, even as—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Pass to the bill please.

I know exactly what I am speaking to. I am speaking to clause 28, “Appointment of chief executive”. It used to have two, and now it has one.

Mr McKay—as the Green leader, Rod Donald, said—is long gone. There were just too many embarrassments out of Industry New Zealand—the expense, the costs, the consultants, the funding of EDS, and the funding of the crooks who ripped off the Minister—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Absolutely. That is allowed—and the funding of the crooks who ripped off Matauri X Incorporation. I can say that in this Chamber. The Minister, Dover Samuels, said it outside the Chamber. Matauri X Incorporation was ripped off over an investment scheme involving millions of dollars of poor people’s money. How was it sold? “Oh look, the Government has given us the OK because Industry New Zealand is funding us to the tune of $100,000. Industry New Zealand would do its homework, right, so it must be a good deal!” Oh, they have gone silent on the Labour benches. Industry New Zealand and Neil McKay were in bed with the people who ripped off Matauri X Incorporation for millions of dollars.

Have we heard Jim Anderton apologise? Have we heard Neil McKay apologise? Poor old Dover Samuels and the beneficiaries of Matauri X Incorporation are down the toilet for millions of dollars, yet Industry New Zealand and all its experts said it was good enough for them to put in $100,000 of taxpayers’ money. They did not even tell the Associate Minister, the Hon Dover Samuels, who is now having to fight in court to save what remnant of resource asset and land Matauri X Incorporation has. Industry New Zealand proved so useless. It did not even take the trouble to look up its own Minister’s asset register and know that it was funding, through the Hon Dover Samuels’ portfolio, the Hon Dover Samuels’ incorporation. That is a disgrace.

It is with a heavy heart that I have to support this bill. I do so for only one reason. It is because the bill seeks to reduce the bureaucracy by one half, and that is a good thing.

💬 John Carter: By some.

Certainly by some, as Mr John Carter tells me. The hope is that it will reduce it by half.

Some of us in this Chamber have actually had successful experience in business.

💬 Rodney Hide: None in the Government.

None in the Government of course, as Mr Hide says. One of the things we know is that if some fool with a briefcase waltzes along and says: “Shall I give you some money? Can you develop something new?”, any red-blooded New Zealander will say: “Yep, I’ll have that.”

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member speak to Part 2.

What is any different about these grants in Part 2? What bits of Part 2 are any different from the old days of supplementary minimum price payments to farmers to get sheep in before 31 March, and then get rid of them after 1 April—which happened to be April Fool’s Day? The difference is that the farmers do not want to see Jim Anderton trotting around, crowing about how much taxpayers’ money he is giving away to people. They know exactly where he can go, and they will tell him—as they would have at the Fieldays, if he had turned up.

The actual function of this bill is stated in clause 9: “The functions of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise are to—(a) contribute to a supportive environment for sustainable economic development.” That sounds really good, but what does this bill have to do with reducing the costs of doing business? Absolutely nothing! What does it say about reducing the risk to employers of taking on employees? Absolutely nothing! Where in the bill does it say: “Look, employers, we know you’re doing a good job. We know you value your staff as your most important asset in any business, and we’re going to help you to have the confidence to employ people.”? Where does it say that in the bill, particularly in clause 9?

💬 David Benson-Pope: What about the bill? This is irrelevant nonsense.

I cannot ever remember David Benson-Pope taking a call, and I would like to know whether he will take any calls on this bill.

💬 Rodney Hide: He’s incapable.

That is true—he is incapable.

Clause 9 goes on to say that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise should “(b) provide a conduit for input and advice from industry,”—and, wait for it—“trade unions, local government, regions, education and research organisations, potential investors, and individual enterprises ...”. The only people in that whole group who would have any clue at all about trade or free enterprise would be industry, some potential investors, and individual enterprises. Everyone else would just be wasting our time, wasting taxpayers’ money, and, more important, wasting the time of employers and business people.

Paragraph (c) states: “enhance industry and regional enterprise and entrepreneurial capabilities ...”. How many bureaucrats have we ever met who would know anything about entrepreneurial capabilities? If they are entrepreneurial, what are they doing being bureaucrats? We would not find any there.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: What about Trevor Moeke?

Apart from Trevor Moeke. The member is quite right—he has certainly been entrepreneurial with someone else’s money.

I come back to the point. Subclause (d) states: “contribute to increased exports from, and investment in, New Zealand…”. Why do we not just start treating people in business as though they were not second-class citizens in their own country? Where does it say that in the bill?

I want to talk about clause 9, and, in particular, about subclause (1)(a)(i). People who are listening to this debate on their crystal sets while driving home will want to know that tonight we are talking about over $200 million of taxpayers’ dollars for this department and its agencies—$211 million, actually. They will want to know that $130 million of that $211 million is set aside for “feel good”. That part of it is not going to business; it is not going to help someone develop and grow. This is the “feel good” bit—$130 million to make one feel good. If I could get my hands on that amount of money, I would feel quite good about it. But the sad thing is that it is not going to any one individual; it is not going to a number of individuals; it is to be given to bureaucrats and their agencies to go out and make people feel good.

If we are to be doing promotions; if we are going to have trade, industries, and the development of small businesses, is that not where we would want to put the focus? I would have thought that we would want to make sure that we had a structure that said: “Here’s somebody with a good idea. Here’s somebody who might create something for New Zealand that we can sell internally and externally. Here’s something that will help us create employment and opportunities for New Zealanders. Here is something that will promote us on the world market.”

But no, the Government will not do that—not under this part, not under the non-departmental output classes. There is $130 million going round so that Jim Anderton can shake a lot of hands and make people feel good. It only makes him feel good, because, sadly, he is letting a lot of people down. That is the disappointment in what I see. He said today that it is better to do something than nothing, but sometimes that is not true. Sometimes the something that Mr Jim Anderton does is to give people expectations and then leave them isolated, so that they are disappointed. In those circumstances, it is better to do nothing.

I have come across case after case—as I am sure you will have done yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker, being an assiduous electorate MP—of people coming into my office to ask what they should do. They tell me they got started, got led down the garden path, got a partial grant, thought they were going to grow, and thought that the Government would stay with them for 4 or 5 years, only to be dropped. They tell me they have mortgaged their homes and everybody else’s homes that they could. They have some money, but they need something to keep moving, and it is not happening.

Clause 9(1)(a)(i) talks about fostering networks and partnerships between the Government, regions, education and research organisations, potential investors, and individual enterprises—and that is the area I particularly want to focus on. That is good stuff. Let us do it, but let us do it in a way that will make it happen. Let us not do it like this failed Minister, who, quite honestly, is a disgrace to Parliament.

A very generous disgrace.

He might be a generous disgrace with taxpayers’ money, but he is achieving nothing for New Zealand. He is spending a huge amount of taxpayer dollars and doing nothing for New Zealanders, other than getting their expectations up and then bashing them. If the Minister in charge of this bill does that, it is a disgrace to Parliament.

Thank you, I appreciate that—

💬 Hon David Carter: The Warehouse, where everyone gets a bargain.

Everyone does not get a bargain at the Warehouse, and Mr Carter ought to know that. People in the Third World do not get a bargain, New Zealand manufacturers do not get a bargain, and a lot of New Zealand’s small retailers do not get a bargain. They have all been put out of business, thanks to the activities of the Warehouse and other big box retailers. That is one of the points we make in relation to this bill. We are concerned about quality, not quantity. We want to get some value for money from this legislation, and we will not get it unless there are changes to the functions.

Mr Carter talked about $211 million under the control of this new Crown entity. That is of considerable concern to the Green Party, because this new entity is in fact the takeover of Industry New Zealand by Trade New Zealand. It is another victory for the free traders in this Government, because the new body is totally export focused. In other words, Jim Anderton has been rolled on this legislation. He used to support import substitution, but he now refuses to include it in this bill. We give him one last chance to support our amendment to clause 9(1)(d). We want to add a very simple provision to enable this body to contribute to increased import substitution within, and investment in, New Zealand. It is all about strengthening domestic linkages through trade and investment promotion, and providing appropriate business and market development assistance. It is the exact mirror image of the previous paragraph, promoting the same for exporting, and we believe the two go hand in hand.

We believe it is absolutely vital that this new entity does not try to fly on one wing. The Minister for Economic Development should support us in that goal, because he has the evidence right within his own ministry that import substitution contributes to the economy. He knows, from the material supplied to him by the Industrial Supplies Office, that for every million dollars of unnecessary imports of goods we could make here, we can create at least 16 jobs and save hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits that do not need to be paid. The Government can generate an equivalent amount of money in the income tax it collects, and more spending power is put into the economy. We would urge the Government to bring some balance to this legislation by incorporating import substitution.

We would also urge the Government to enshrine in the functions cooperation with Tourism New Zealand, where appropriate. We believe that the two organisations can work hand in hand, and could work a lot more closely in the international marketplace. There is obvious synergy between the two that the Government does not take advantage of at the moment, and by putting it in this bill, we could achieve more in that direction. In particular, we ask the Government to ensure that businesses live up to the Government’s own standards.

Clause 31(2) sets out the Government’s “good employer” criteria. We think it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that any business that receives a grant from the new entity should itself live up to those criteria. It is pretty basic stuff to expect a business that is going to accept a Government handout to meet some minimum Government standards. They are set out in clause 31(2), but we want to make an addition to subclause (2) that should warm the heart of the Minister in the chair. We want to add that a “good employer” personnel policy would contain provisions that include recognition of equal pay for work of equal value. All members on the Government side should support that, and I challenge them to vote for that amendment when it comes up. If they do not, they really need to question their commitment to Labour Party principles.

Beyond that, we are seeking to introduce a few other amendments into this legislation, particularly to clause 66. This clause is all about the form and content of the annual report, and we are saying that the report needs to include a statement of sustainability performance covering economic, environmental, social, and cultural outcomes. Without that, we will get nowhere with this organisation, because it will not have a focus on quality. It will, instead, be fixated on quantity.

I move, That the question be now put.

New Zealand First supports the purpose of this bill, which is to foster trade and enterprise, with a focus on exports, and to improve our export potential. However, I am disappointed in this bill, because the Government has failed to include tourism as part of the collaborative networks and partnerships.

I refer to clause 9, “Functions”, and in particular subclause (1)(a)(i), which describes one of the functions as “fostering collaborative networks and partnerships between central government, local government, industry, trade unions, regions, education and research organisations, potential investors, and individual enterprises”. But it does not include tourism. Tourism should be included here, because it is a major employer within New Zealand. It is a major industry and it is among the top three of our export earners. It should be included in this bill, particularly under “collaborative networks and partnerships”. By not including tourism, the Government is failing to recognise the industries that are built up around it. Tourism creates a huge industry within this country, and industries are developed to attract tourism, so, as a combination, they are—or should be—an integral part of this bill. I have spoken to a large number of people within the tourism industry, and they agree that by excluding them, this bill is missing out on a golden opportunity to include them in our promotion and export potential overseas.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: They have got their own Act, and there is Tourism New Zealand.

The Minister says they have their own Act, but why do we not collaborate with the tourism industry? It is a major industry and a major employer within New Zealand.

New Zealand First put in a minority report. In our view, it is not sufficient, in developing the statement of intent for the new organisation, to restrict the input to just the integrating organisations. Tourism, and the associated industries, represent a significant export sector and, as such, should be recognised as an integral industry for the purpose of this bill. Tourism and tourism industries have expanded as a result of enterprise, and, conversely, industries have also developed as a result of tourism. Tourism should be part of this bill.

New Zealand First’s policy on tourism is that it is a key earner for foreign exchange. That is what this bill is trying to promote—foreign exchange and foreign export. New Zealand First recognises the opportunities for economic growth and employment throughout tourism and tourism ventures. A New Zealand First - led Government would treat our tourism industry as an export industry specifically for the application of venture capital, funding, research and development, incentives, and the technology to create much larger exports. We continue to support venture tourism, marketing, and stricter guidelines for accountability, and encourage the development of regional tourism.

Here we are talking about regional developments. This bill is trying to develop regional development, so why do we not include tourism within its consultative and collaborative part? No, this Government wants to exclude it, leave it dangling out in the wind, and say that tourism has its own Act. So what that it has its own Act? Tourism can also play a part in this bill, and its export side is huge.

💬 Hon David Carter: Wealth creation.

It is wealth creation, but, more important, it is job creation and enterprise creation. All tourism enterprises and industries that develop around tourism develop huge potential, particularly in Auckland. We could develop much better industry within Auckland. There is huge potential for employment and industry in the tourism industry in Auckland, so why do we not include tourism in this bill?

I move, That the question be now put.

I am going to speak specifically on clauses 9, 12, and 17 and ask questions of the Minister, so I may need more than one call in order to ask all the questions I have.

💬 Rodney Hide: Yes, I think that member might need four.

I might need four—that is right—and I know that other members also have many questions to ask this Minister.

I refer first to clause 17, which is probably the clause that concerns me most as we move through Part 2. It is about the Minister’s role in respect of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and includes functions such as appointing directors. I ask the Minister to tell us what criteria will be used in selecting the directors of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. I want an assurance that it will not be yet another attempt to appoint Labour Party lackeys. But I am more concerned—

💬 Government Members: Like Wira Gardiner?

Yes, there is another one. I do not mind who they are, provided they have the ability to do the job and the Minister can give an assurance that they will be appointed on merit rather than on their ability to make Labour Party donations. Maybe the Minister, while she is on her feet, can confirm how much the Warehouse gave to the Labour Party, because I note that the Warehouse got a grant of $75,000 from that generous Minister.

More specifically, I want to talk about clause 17(c)—the giving of ministerial directions to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. I want the Minister to explain what role he or she will have in giving direction to the board. Industry New Zealand has given a large number of grants, which, to date, have been an absolute failure. A grant was given to Bill Lloyd of Sovereign Yachts on the basis that the Prime Minister gave the House an assurance it would create jobs. We know now that people in that company have been laid off and left totally disappointed. So I want the Minister to explain what directions and discretion he or she will be giving the board, and what role the Minister will have in any funding decision at all. Will sectors, such as the boat-building industry, be singled out as a priority?

💬 Brent Catchpole: Not another Sovereign Yachts.

We do not know. We just know that the Minister previously has taken a shine to particular industries and guaranteed the creation of jobs. We know of one that got a large dollop of taxpayer money, plus a lot of land at a very cheap price, and has not delivered anything substantial to the economy.

The second clause I want to talk about is clause 12, “Compliance with Government policy. It states: “(1) In the performance of its functions and duties, and in the exercise of its powers, NZTE must give effect to any policy of the Government …”. That has to be one of the most worrying clauses in this bill, because there again we see that this $130 million slush fund can be used simply to promote photo opportunities for the Minister. Earlier, Jim Anderton interrupted saying he loves photo opportunities.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: What’s wrong with them?

The Minister in the chair, Judith Tizard, has interrupted to ask what is wrong with them. That depends at what cost—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: The cost is usually a film, and standing there and smiling.

Well, I think that that shows we are in trouble. The Minister says the cost is a roll of film and a smile. Can she imagine Jim Anderton going to see Stephen Tindall at the Warehouse with a cheque for $75,000?

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: I can’t.

The Minister cannot? She ought to get to grips with the portfolio—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: That’s not how it works.

Well, the Minister did give $75,000 to the Warehouse. There would have been a photo opportunity, and I think that photo opportunities come at a huge cost.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: No, no. You’ve got it all wrong.

Well, the Minister can take the call. I would be delighted if she took a call and explained to us how there is no cost associated with photo opportunities. We have seem Jim Anderton go up and down the country, carrying cheques—all of which are from hard-earned taxpayers.

I move, That the question be now put.

The Chairman appreciates the importance of Part 2. It is a substantial part of this important bill, and we appreciate the opportunity to speak on it.

I am going to introduce some new debating material in this part, but, first of all, I would like to comment on the interjection of the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, the Hon Judith Tizard. She asked what was wrong about the Hon Jim Anderton wanting photo opportunities. The No. 1 reason is that it costs taxpayers money, and the No. 2 reason is that I presume the Minister knows the feeling because she is famous for being the Minister who would go to the opening of oysters. But never mind; let us come back to this bill.

I was interested to look at subclause (1)(a)(i) in clause 9, “Functions”, because quite a few Opposition members raised concerns about that issue. But I look at it from a different angle—that this new organisation, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, is meant to foster collaborative networks and partnerships between central government, local government, industry, trade unions, regions—

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Quite a few of my parliamentary colleagues have mentioned clause 9, “Functions”, which contains a very valid issue. As stated in subclause (1)(a)(i), New Zealand Trade and Enterprise would continue the function of “fostering collaborative networks and partnerships between central government, local government, industry, trade unions, regions, education and research organisations, potential investors, and individual enterprises;”. I put it to the Committee that that would include every single individual in New Zealand who can talk and walk. Is New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to conduct talkfests endlessly, and mindlessly create so-called networks among the 4,000,000 New Zealanders?

We have further concerns on the subject of talkfests with regard to clause 18, “Minister responsible to House of Representatives”. First of all, the Minister, the Hon Jim Anderton, has taken one call during the Committee stage and avoided answering any questions. So what confidence do we have? I do not have any expectations of the Minister responsible to the House of Representative, if the Minister of Māori Affairs is any example to judge by. I want the Minister in the chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, to take a call and assure us of the sort of accountability we can expect from the Minister who is supposed to be held, by this bill, “responsible ... to the House of Representatives for the exercise and performance of the functions, power, and duties …”.

My colleague the Hon David Carter read out a long list of grants that have been given, including to the Warehouse, one of the largest companies in New Zealand. How is a development grant to a company like the Warehouse justified? The Labour Government continues to tell business, local government, and community organisations that it is really going to cooperate with them on a genuine partnership basis, but when we look at the bill, we see that, apart from the board members—we do not know how those board members will be appointed but, boy, the Labour Government does not trust them—there is a separate clause that provides for the Government appointing special advisers.

Who are those special advisers? They will be the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the chief executive of the Ministry of Economic Development, and there are very specific requirements as to how they have to attend board meetings. I would say that, before those board members are appointed, the Government will be keeping a very, very close watch on the performance of the board.

I move, That the question be now put.