New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill

I move, That the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill be now read a third time. In moving that motion, I take the opportunity to thank all those who have contributed to this legislation—the people, organisations, and businesses that made submissions; members of the Commerce Committee, particularly the chair, Mark Peck, for considering the bill in such a short space of time; officials from the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who worked on the bill; my colleague Jim Sutton; and members of the House.

The bill was referred to the Commerce Committee, which presented its report to the House on 23 April. The establishment of a one-stop shop agency with a comprehensive programme of actions for industries, regions, and businesses is a major achievement for this coalition Government. The legislation creates a new economic development agency that will provide a full range of business assistance and advice in the key areas of investment, exports, production, and marketing. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will be in operation from 1 July. The Government’s aim in establishing this new agency is to support the growth of internationally competitive New Zealand businesses.

The decision to merge Trade New Zealand and Industry New Zealand has also been motivated by the need to respond to a strong message from the business community. The business community said, and the coalition Government agreed, that as there were two agencies that work with the same companies, and deal with overlapping business and developmental issues, it made absolute sense to streamline them, and to have advice delivered from just one; in other words, it is a one-stop shop.

Last night in the House during the Committee stage of the bill John Carter, member for the far north, asked for evidence that this coalition has had any success in working with businesses, regions, or industries. He asked whether I could name just one company that we had had success with. When I went back to my office I found a whole page in the Dominion Post that was interesting because one of our very promising, high-growth engineering companies, Fraser JJ Engineering Ltd of Lower Hutt, had been nominated for a gold award in the business competition for the Wellington region. That company, which has recently won contracts worth over $30 million for fire appliances for New Zealand, Australia, and Fiji, as well as being an accredited supplier to General Motors Defense internationally, was asked how the Government could specifically assist its industry. The answer, in the Dominion Post, which is not exactly a Progressive party newsletter, was: “Continue to fund Industry New Zealand so they can continue to provide advice and assistance which we have found invaluable in the past, and keep the Hon Jim Anderton on as Minister of Economic Development.”

It strikes me as odd that the National Party and other Opposition parties have not figured that out. John Carter was keen to ask about the success we had had in regional development terms. I remind Mr Carter, and the National Party, that this Government has provided $30 million for fully funded regional roading to be built each year. Interestingly, the two regions that were selected for the first tranche of that money were Tairawhiti, on the East Coast of the North Island, and Northland. I would have thought that John Carter would know that something like $10 million is, as we speak, being spent, without any cost to the northern local authorities, on the development of roading that is essential to “the wall of wood” that is coming on stream in Northland.

If the member for the far north does not know his local community, he might be interested in the fact that the Mayor of the Far North District Council, Yvonne Sharp, has acknowledged the benefits of that funding being able to make John Carter’s region a much better economic proposition for the future than it has ever been. She said: “The announcement that the Far North District would receive $9.7 million totally subsidised regional development roading funding for the current year is amazingly positive for the district. For years, there has been stripping of infrastructure from rural areas such as ours, and our communities have suffered accordingly. The Government in 1999 gave a commitment to position regional development partnerships, and there was no way that Northland could have coped with the forthcoming wall of wood without the direct intervention from the Government.” I repeat: “the direct intervention from the Government”.

That is the reason the coalition Government has the full support of regional communities in New Zealand. There is not one local authority, local community, or regional community that does not know of the work that is being done in partnership with the local regions and, through the agencies of the Government, that this coalition has sponsored and developed. The New Zealand Trade and Enterprise agency will develop and continue that work.

I am surprised that John Carter did not know that Northland is one of the fastest-growing regions in the country. It certainly was not when Mr Ryall was on this side of the House, I can assure members. It was a basket case. As I speak, there is not one single region that is in negative growth mode. Is that an accident? Is it something that just happened? No, it is not. This Government has worked extraordinarily hard in cooperation and partnership with businesses individual and collective, industries, and local communities and local authorities to see that every single New Zealander, business, and region gets a chance to develop its full potential.

There is an amazing array of innovation, creativity, and successful development going on in this country at the present time. We have every reason to be extraordinarily optimistic. There has not been a time that I can remember when other major economies, like the American, the Japanese, many of the so-called “Asian tiger” economies, or the European economies, have been doing a lot worse than New Zealand. Usually, when those economies catch cold, this country has caught pneumonia, but we have been out-performing our traditional trading partners for nearly 3 years, and that augurs very well for our future. It is true that we have had some luck in terms of commodity prices, weather, and so on.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Some luck!

Mr Ryall complains that this Government has got lucky. It is amazing that in 9 years in Government his party never had any luck at all! It reminds me a bit of Gary Player, the famous South African golfer, who once won the PGA championship in America. After the tournament a reporter came up to him, put a microphone in his face, and said: “Mr Player, you were very lucky on the putting green today.” He said: “You know, the more I practise the luckier I get.” I do not think the National Party practises getting lucky at all. This Government practises a lot and—guess what—we get lucky a lot.

This is a policy-based Government. Those policies are working. This policy of a one-stop shop agency for the development of business in New Zealand, for the regions of this country, for our economic development, and for the well-being of our people is a very positive move in the right direction. I commend this legislation to the House. I thank those who have been associated with it in the House in hearing the issues involved and in reporting back the bill, which was almost unamended. The only amendments we had were a few frivolous ones that suggested that we should do all sorts of extraordinary things. Those amendments were frivolous because those things were already covered in the bill, and the members putting the amendments did not understand the full import of the developmental policies of this Government. I commend this bill to the House.

On cinema screens all around the nation tonight the new Jim Carrey film has been shown. It is called Bruce Almighty—and that was a speech from “Jim Almighty”! It is his great leadership that has given New Zealand farmers the best commodity prices in a generation, it is “Jim Almighty” who has delivered the best weather conditions for a generation, and it is “Jim Almighty” who has delivered the lower dollar that has really benefited provincial New Zealand and really given this country the get-up-and-go that we have seen in the last 4 years—but I thought it was all to do with the Lord Almighty and what was happening internationally! I was completely unaware that it is all to do with “Jim Almighty”. Is it not great to be “Jim Almighty”, to come into Parliament—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member will use the correct address, please.

Is it not great to be “Mr Anderton Almighty”, who came into Parliament with 13 MPs but is now here with two? That is how great the Alliance’s policy was! Do members remember, before the last election, how well the Alliance was going to do out of the Jim Anderton “jobs machine”? Do members remember the spin that the Alliance would become the party of small business? It is the party only of people with small houses, small cars, and small minds. That is what one gets from Mr Anderton, who has taken credit for everything that has gone right with the weather, the dollar, and international commodity prices.

The New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill is a wasted opportunity. We had an opportunity to bring together the 32 different funding and granting organisations of the Government and to bring that $800 million of investment under one umbrella, to remove the ridiculous duplication that people in business report—they can have five or six representatives of Government funds knocking on their doors offering money—to remove the foolish waste of public resources, whereby Industry New Zealand has $130 million to give out and an administrative budget of $45 million, and to remove the hideous inequity whereby the Warehouse can get a cheque for $75,000 but a whole lot of small-business people with a good idea cannot get a grant, because they cannot provide the matching funds.

What sort of system gives the company of one of the richest men in New Zealand almost $100,000, yet small-business people with a good idea who have not got matching funds cannot get a dollar out of the Jim Anderton “jobs machine”? What sort of economic development strategy spends hundreds of thousands of taxpayer resources on putting a failed yacht business called Sovereign Yachts into west Auckland, yet the ordinary businessperson cannot get an Industry New Zealand grant, because he or she has not got the $5,000-$10,000 of matching funds one needs to get an enterprise award?

What sort of economic development strategy do we have in this country when it is all about giving the Minister a photo opportunity—and if people say they do not want their photo taken with Jim Anderton, the bureaucrats say: “Oh, you’d better think twice about that. You might not get your cheque.”? What sort of economic development strategy do we have in this country when we have a budget of $130 million to encourage business and we are spending $45 million on the administrative overhead? What sort of country with a sensible economic development strategy has five agencies knocking on the door of a business in Auckland, all offering money for virtually the same thing? It just does not make sense. It is excessive duplication and it is not delivering the results.

What sort of economic development strategy do we have in New Zealand when the Prime Minister of this country said that the Sovereign Yachts project was the flagship of the Government’s economic development strategy and that it was going to deliver $600 million worth of exports and provide hundreds of jobs for west Auckland—and people are being laid off as this Parliament meets? This is a system that needs reform.

It is amusing to hear Mr Anderton say that business endorses this amalgamation. The Independent newspaper went to virtually all business organisations in this country and asked them whether they supported this bill. It could not find anyone in business who supported what is proposed in this bill. The Independent could not find one business organisation that had even been consulted by this Government on the introduction of this bill.

💬 David Benson-Pope: What a pathetic speech!

I agree with Mr Benson-Pope—it is a pathetic bill. It is pathetic because it is a missed opportunity. If that member wants to keep interjecting, we will start talking about what he did on the Dunedin City Council and about what he should be answering for in terms of the use of public moneys when he was on that council. He will not like it if we go through how he spent the Dunedin City Council’s money and what he spent it on when he was a member of that council.

This bill is a wasted opportunity. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will not survive the change of Government that is coming in this country. It will not survive. It will be changed. We will bring together the 32 different funding and grants authorities that exist, because the “jobs machine” is a failure. The Prime Minister said that the Sovereign Yachts investment was the flagship that would create hundreds of millions of dollars in export earnings and hundreds of jobs in west Auckland

💬 Brian Connell: What happened?

Mr Connell asks what happened to the flagship. It sank.

💬 Brian Connell: Without trace.

There is a slight trace. There is that sort of shimmery, petrol-type stuff floating on the water, which is the wasted taxpayers’ money that was involved in this project. I urge the House to be well aware that this is a wasted opportunity. It is an agency that should have been expanded to include the other 32 different grants and funding organisations. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money that we have missed this opportunity. But that is what one gets from the small people who think they have a plan to run this country, when really it is the productive sector that should be supported with lower taxes, less regulation, and a Government that is prepared to free up the economy and back the productive sector. That is not the sort of Government they are getting at the moment.

I am old enough to remember the days when the then Prime Minister, Keith Holyoake, used to say that New Zealand was the greatest trading nation in the world. In fact it was true in those days. On a per capita basis we were the No. 1 trading nation in this world. Would that conditions were as benign today as they were then. In more recent times, particularly in the last 25 years or so, it has become more and more difficult in many ways and at many levels for New Zealand to expand its export trade. For that reason, Trade New Zealand has been tremendously popular with the export and commercially orientated sectors of the New Zealand economy. Therefore, we support the merger of Trade New Zealand with Industry New Zealand. We very much hope that—and I believe this is the way it will turn out to be—Trade New Zealand will be, if one likes, the leading culture of the two organisations as they come together. Also, we very much hope that the tremendous commercial orientation that Trade New Zealand has built up and that is so popular with New Zealand exporters will go right back through the whole organisation into the more “within the borders of New Zealand” parts of the merger, which traditionally were the preserve of Industry New Zealand.

Small business in New Zealand has to be nurtured and assisted in every way, never more so than when it takes that fateful step of trying to branch out into export markets. So often these days, it seems to me, the cards are stacked against New Zealand. Today, for example, a new Border Security Bill was introduced to the House. That bill is necessary because the United States of America has introduced new and extremely strict controls on the importation of goods to that nation. It will mean that in future New Zealand exporters have, if one likes, a higher hurdle to clear before they can get their goods into the United States of America—and that is just the latest example. That one, I know, is the result of the September 11 event and the battle of the US against worldwide terrorism, but it is just another thing that impacts quite negatively on New Zealand exporters.

Incidentally, sometimes when the US does that, it seems to me that it looks like a thinly disguised import-protection scheme. I hope that is not the case in this instance and that the new US border controls will be applied to all nations, and not just to ports and airports but also to the border trade between the US and Canada to the north, and Mexico to the south, because I think that the latter in particular is a more likely entry point for terrorist organisations. I give that as just one example of the need we have for a well-resourced Government agency that has high expertise to get alongside and help foster the export growth of New Zealand and its businesses. United Future has pleasure in supporting the third reading of this bill.

New Zealand First has supported this bill from the first reading and will continue to support it in the third reading. We have pointed out from time to time, however, that this bill epitomises the failure of Labour Party policy. It epitomises it by the fact that it repeals the Industry New Zealand Act of 2000—an Act that will have cost this country many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars. It came into effect, and at the time New Zealand First supported the concept. We thought it was a good idea. At the time, though, we pointed out that we thought this Government would not be able to give full support to the officials and the department in so far as the Industry New Zealand Act was concerned, and we have been proved correct; because here we are in 2003 repealing the Act brought in by Jim Anderton with such a big hurrah at the time, saying that he was going to cure all our ills and that the Industry New Zealand Act was to be the answer. But he has failed, and it does not matter what he says about how well the regions are doing as a result of good weather, good trading conditions, and the reliance upon the immigrants’ dollar. The fact is that Government policy in this area has failed, and this Act, which repeals the Industry New Zealand Act, is a clear example of it.

However, we still retain the hope that this minority Labour Government—I see it is falling in the polls—will be able to, this time, perhaps take the advice of New Zealand First and give more support to officials, and perhaps even consider giving the job to someone with more energy and a greater spark so that this time the legislation will be a success, rather than the obvious failure it has been.

Even with this bill, this minority Labour Government could not even get the name right. It is a simple enough thing, when one is introducing legislation, to at least get the name right. If one cannot get the name right, it suggests that maybe one is having difficulty with the rest of it. This bill came in as the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill, and during the course of submissions it was decided that that was not right, and it would be renamed the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill. Well, New Zealand First has gone ahead and supported that change. After all, one might say: “What’s in a name?”. But it does suggest that little thought has gone into the legislation.

During the course of the Commerce Committee hearings the committee decided to include trade unions as being a group that should have been involved in the legislation, and New Zealand First has supported that amendment. During the Committee stage the National Party put forward an amendment to remove trade unions from the legislation, and New Zealand First opposed that amendment. We were consistent in our support for the fact that in a body like this we need the various groups referred to in the bill, and I refer to clause 9(1)(a)(i)—it is a complicated bill to find one’s way around—which refers to “fostering collaborative networks and partnerships between central government, local government, industry, trade unions,”—having been inserted—“regions, education and research organisations, potential investors, and individual enterprises;”.

It is important in any partnership of trading and enterprise that one should have not only employers but employees and their representatives from both those groups involved in any development. New Zealand First was delighted to support the insertion of “trade unions” and to oppose the National Party amendment to delete it.

During the Committee stage we were fairly broad in our support of and opposition to various matters. Sometimes we supported the Government, sometimes we supported other Opposition parties in amendments to the legislation. One of the amendments where we supported other Opposition parties related to clause 31, “Personnel policy”, in subclause (2), where this minority Labour Government, consistent with its patronising approach to Māori people, has been able to have inserted “(d) recognition of—(i) “the aims and aspirations of Māori; and (ii) the employment requirements of Māori; and (iii) the need for involvement of Māori as employees of NZTE;” etc.

What a patronising clause! We have consistently said that Māoris can stand up for themselves. They do not need special treatment, and they do not want special treatment. We in New Zealand First have proportionally more Māori members of Parliament than has the Labour Party. Our members express the view of the modern Māori, and this type of patronising clause is not required. However, the Labour Party with its majority, supported by United Future, insisted on that clause staying in the bill. We opposed it unsuccessfully during the Committee stage.

We are also disappointed that no reference has been made in this legislation to tourism. Tourism plays a very big part in our economy, and one of the results of people coming here, through tourism and the industry surrounding tourism, is that there are industries working to help the industry of tourism, and we would have thought that in a New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill some recognition would be given to the tourism sector. But there is nothing in the bill to that effect, despite our minority report from the select committee.

One of the things that pleased me most about this legislation, and why I was generally delighted to support it, was the fact that in the functions clause—clause 9(1) to which I have just referred—there is this provision for collaborative networks and suchlike, and in paragraph (b) the functions include to “provide a conduit for input and advice from industry, trade unions, local government, regions, education and research organisations, potential investors, and individual enterprises on programmes to implement the Government’s policies for economic, industry, and regional development:”.

I say that especially in regard to the region that I have in mind, which is the Whenuapai area in Waitakere City. As will be well known to many members of Parliament, there is a suggestion that the RNZAF base in Auckland will close, and the Labour Government has a programme to close it. In the event that that does happen, and steps are taken in that direction on a final basis, then it seems clear to me that this type of legislation is very, very appropriate for the development of that area. We are talking about an area that currently is estimated to contribute $60 million per year to the Waitakere – North Shore economies. It is the Waitakere City Council’s single biggest employer with 14,020 fulltime-equivalent employees. There are 453,000 people currently living within 6 kilometres of Whenuapai; 27 percent of the families within 10 kilometres of Whenuapai have an annual income over $70,000. This is a very important area for Waitakere City, for North Shore City, for Rodney District. If one looks at the growth of Auckland in the future in that north and north-west direction, one sees that something needs to be done on a programme basis.

This type of legislation, I believe, can play an important role in working with the local government people of Waitakere City, Rodney District, and North Shore City in much the same way as way back in 1975 when I was elected as member of Parliament for Waitemata. We had those many hundreds of acres of land around Albany that we developed, and had meetings and programmes over many years, which the Hon Don McKinnon continued. Now we have a wonderful development in the Albany basin area of industry and also residential areas. They are the perfect mix, so one can ensure growth in a proper way with good, clean industries and a good quality of development.

If we had had a Labour Government in 1975, that area would have been State houses, because that was the Labour Party plan. Imagine what that Albany area would be like if it were full of State houses, in much the same way as Otara, which is the way the Labour Party looked upon it then. If we look at west Auckland now, Waitakere City now, and Whenuapai, and Hobsonville, we see that is what the Labour Party plans—another Otara-type development there. I dread to think of it. I believe that the type of development we have in Albany is something that this trade enterprise committee should be looking at.

We have had a promise from Ministers that they have established and are jointly leading the establishment of a working-group that will recommend a process by which decisions will eventually be made with regard to the Whenuapai area. This is a public message of 12 March 2003 from the Hon Mark Burton: “This group will consult with a range of Government, local government, and community interests.” Is that not like the situation we have in this legislation? It seems to me to be totally in keeping with it.

Finally, in this note, from which I wish to read, as they say, it states: “Initial reports are expected from this group by the middle of this year.” Well, that is this year—2003. We have not heard anything yet. The people of Whenuapai, Waitakere City, and surrounding areas can be sure that I will be chasing along the Ministers to make sure we do get a report. I have been pleased to support this bill for New Zealand First because I can see it playing a very, very important role in the future development of Waitakere City and surrounding areas, and I look forward to the way in which it will be implemented.

I rise to support this bill and pay a compliment to the wonderful chairmanship of Mark Peck and his team. I have just one message for the Opposition. I heard the Hon Tony Ryall wax lyrical, or try to, but I would rather be the Minister for Economic Development, the Hon Jim Anderton, for just 1 minute, than be the Leader of the Opposition, on 24 percent in terms of tonight’s TV3 poll, for 3 years. What was it, 7 percent?

Government members: Yes, 7 percent.

At that rating he will not even win Balclutha. That is the difference between him and this Government. Mark Peck would win Balclutha. Bill English cannot. This is a good bill, good work by the Commerce Committee, and excellent work by the Minister for Economic Development.

That was actually a very sad speech by Mr Gallagher from Hamilton. He had nothing to say about the substance of the bill, and gave a short couple of sentences that made some pathetic attempts at political point-scoring. I think it is appalling when legislation like this is treated with such disdain by Government members. ACT opposes this legislation. Like other Opposition parties, we have spoken strongly against it. I have listened to other Opposition parties and substantially agreed with their arguments. But ACT not only speaks against this bill, we will be voting against it. In fact, I believe that only ACT and the Greens will be voting against this legislation.

💬 Rod Donald: For opposite reasons.

The co-leader of the Greens Mr Donald says it is for opposite reasons, and I would like to make that point very clear to the House—they are quite different reasons. The Greens hate trade. They go around the world campaigning against free trade. They hate trade but love bureaucracy, so they are voting against this bill; whereas ACT hates bureaucracy but loves trade, and we are voting against this bill. I think that is a fair enough assessment of it.

But the problem with this bill from ACT’s perspective is that we have two conflicting cultures. The bill attempts to meld the Trade Development Board, which has been in existence in various forms since 1988, with a very recent organisation, Industry New Zealand. It is questionable whether it is a legitimate role of Government to be an active commercial participant in trade promotion. It is clear that the role of Government is to create the climate to facilitate trade. It is certainly a legitimate role of Government to do those things that only Governments can do, and that is to negotiate with other Governments to break down the barriers to trade.

When I look at our record as a country, I see we have really left undone most things that we ought to have done, and done those things that we ought not to have done.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Throw everything out!

Oh, the member recognises it, does he? The point is that trade negotiations—gaining access—are the legitimate role of Government, but when we compare ourselves with Australia, we see that Australia has 140 full-time trade negotiators working on World Trade Organization issues, and access to various markets around the world, like free-trade agreements with the United States. New Zealand has a mere 15. Think about it! Australia is four times the size of New Zealand on a per capita basis, yet it has eight times more dedicated professional trade negotiators working on access. Is it any wonder Australia is cleaning us out in market after market? That is where Government should be working, and that is where Government is not working.

We have a few people like Mike Moore, whom we appoint as sort of honorary legends for life, and send them off. That is not good enough. We need professional middle-management people doing the hard yards, and we have not had that. Instead, Government gets involved in all the sorts of things that it should not be involved in, like going off to trade fairs and trying to be the generic promoter of product. That is not the role of Government. Private sector business will do that best, and always has done it best. Government deludes itself by establishing bureaucracies to try to do the business of trade. It should be doing business with other Governments to set a framework and a climate wherein trade can flourish. That is where the effort should go—not into trying to do the commercial business of trade. Philosophically, that would be my criticism of Trade New Zealand, although I have to say that it has also done some great work. Peter Shirtcliffe did some brilliant work in the early days of the Trade Development Board.

But Industry New Zealand is a politicised farce. It is the dreamchild of Jim Anderton. Obviously, the Labour Government was prepared to buy him off, fob him off, and throw just a few more taxpayers’ millions into his little pet project. The philosophy of Industry New Zealand was: “Hey I’ve got this big fat chequebook, and I’m going to bribe you with your own money.” So the Government employs all these middle-management characters, who fly around the country, stay in the top hotels, and go up to business and say: “Boy, I’m going to give you some money.” In other words: “I’m going to give you some of your own money back. We’re going to tax you more, so that we’ve got this big bucket of money and Government can go around the country giving out largesse.” That is why one ends up with crazy things like Sovereign Yachts, which was not a commercial project but a politicised project. Jim Anderton goes out, has his photograph taken, and says: “I’ve got 400 new jobs here.”

💬 Ron Mark: That is a housing project.

Well, it has turned out to be a housing project. That is the other problem—the Government fast tracks the Resource Management Act and all those other obstacles that the battling industries of New Zealand struggle against, picks a winner, and says: “I’m going to bribe you with your own money and clear the track for you, because I, Jim Anderton, and the Labour Government, have decided that you’re on a winner.” Politicians should not try to act commercially, because they never do it well, and never have. That is the lesson that this Labour Government clearly has not learnt from history, and it is destined to relive it, and so we end up with fiascos like Sovereign Yachts. We do not have the 400 jobs. We do not have the yacht-building industry we were promised, and we have already spent the money. It was an absolute rort.

While I am on that subject, why did Jim Anderton’s little team of Industry New Zealand people go up to the Warehouse and say: “Here’s $100,000 of taxpayers’ money. You need it.”?

💬 Ron Mark: They needed it.

“Everyone gets a bargain!” Did Stephen Tindall make a donation to the Labour Party election campaign? Is that the payback? What else could it possibly be? EDS (New Zealand) is a multinational corporate as big as the New Zealand economy. Have a guess how much Industry New Zealand thought it would give EDS (New Zealand)? How much?

💬 Dail Jones: $1 million.

EDS (New Zealand)—a multinational corporate—was handed $1.5 million of taxpayers’ money by Industry New Zealand. I love multinational corporates; I think they are great, but let me assure members that they are big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves. They do not need socialist Governments taking money off hard-working, battling New Zealanders to dish out to them. They will take the money and put up a wonderful story about why they need it, but let me assure members that they do not. They should not be receiving taxpayers’ money.

ACT New Zealand has spoken against this bill, and we will be voting against it. What we have here is the very bad culture of Industry New Zealand being melded to Trade New Zealand. Trade New Zealand has done some very good work, but it is very questionable that that is a legitimate role of Government. The role that Government should be playing is putting more effort into breaking down trade barriers, removing the compliance costs on industry and business, and creating a climate where the private sector can flourish. This business that “I’m in partnership with you, I’m from the Government, I’m here to help you.” is a nonsense. Wherever it has been tried around the world, it has failed.

I rise to support this bill. It is a wonderful next step from the Industry New Zealand Bill that I was involved with on the Commerce Committee, when we decided that we did need to move to this next step.

The rhetoric of the Opposition members astonishes me. They say they want the Government out, but they also want the Government to get more markets and help with trade negotiations. One needs to be consistent about what one wants. This bill is consistent. It is the next step in terms of developing a strong, rigorous body to manage our overseas trade markets and maximise our opportunities on the world stage. It is a great piece of legislation.

The Labour Government could have led the world with this legislation. It could have demonstrated by its actions that it means what it says when it claims on the international stage to be a world leader in sustainable development. It could have put its money where its mouth is and shown that it is possible to create jobs and make the economy more self-reliant, at the same time as strengthening our social fabric and protecting—indeed, enhancing—our environment. What a landmark day this could have been. Sadly, it is not. It is not, because the Government has failed to live up to its own rhetoric. It is happy to talk about sustainability, it is happy to plan for sustainability, and it is happy to start the process of implementing sustainability around the edges, but it refuses to implement sustainable development at the core, at the sharp end of its drive for economic growth.

Early in this Government’s first term we were optimistic that Labour would steer New Zealand in the right direction. Prime Minister Helen Clark stood on platforms around the country, advocating sustainable development and triple bottom line reporting. But when the Industry New Zealand legislation came to the House, we were downright shocked to find there was no commitment to sustainable development in that bill or in the Ministry of Economic Development bill.

What a contrast and a contradiction between what Helen Clark said at the Redesigning Resources Conference and at the Local Government New Zealand conference, and what Mr Anderton has brought into this Parliament—especially given that Mr Anderton had been part of the Alliance that we made a significant contribution to. Mr Anderton said: “Don’t worry”. He promised to issue a ministerial direction to Industry New Zealand, to ensure that it would work within a sustainability framework. He did not deliver. Once bitten, twice shy! But, always the optimist, the Greens took the Government at its word when it launched Towards a Triple Bottom Line in March this year. In her foreword Minister Marian Hobbs said: “Sustainable development is the cornerstone of the Government’s economic, social, and environmental policies. Triple bottom line reporting is part of a whole-of-Government programme to find better ways of measuring and reporting on progress towards sustainability at several levels, ranging from national, to local, to organisational.”

Those are very fine words, and I congratulate the Minister and her ministry on being one of the first ministries or departments to produce a report on the Ministry for the Environment’s environmental, economic, and social performance. However, I am afraid her lead has not been followed with any enthusiasm. Most Government departments, Crown entities, and State-owned enterprises have not followed its fine example; neither have they embraced the Sustainable Development for New Zealand: Programme of Action, launched by the Minister in January this year.

The programme of action is stirring stuff. The principles for policy and decision making are superb, and I urge all members in the House to read them. I would like to quote from the last paragraph of those principles: “Sustainable development must be at the core of all Government policy.” There it is! According to Minister Marian Hobbs, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has informed all chief executives about those principles and that decision-making framework. So what are the Ministry of Economic Development and Industry New Zealand doing to implement them? I have to say, not a lot. Here is what they said in reply to a question for written answer that I put to them. In relation to the triple bottom line reporting they said: “No specific arrangements to monitor Crown entities on this basis are being put in place at present. This is because the whole-of-Government approach referred to was intended for the testing of triple bottom line reporting, not to implement or apply it across Government. There is no obligation at present to apply triple bottom line reporting as a monitoring device in respect of Crown entities or other Government bodies.” Would that shatter members’ optimism? It certainly shattered ours, which is why we were not surprised when there was a complete absence of reference to sustainable development and triple bottom line reporting in this bill.

We are here to help. We offered the Government our support to ensure that this bill gave effect to the Government’s stated commitment to sustainable development. I concede that we achieved one change at the select committee. We got the words “sustainable economic growth” changed to “sustainable economic development”. I guess we should be grateful, but, instead, I think the Government should be extraordinarily embarrassed.

When this bill reached the Committee stage, yesterday we tried very hard to give the Government the opportunity to give effect to its own polices, and we failed, I am afraid. The Government refused to adopt any of our amendments. We said to the Government that it should put some sustainability principles into the bill. After all, it put sustainability principles into the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act. The Government has required local government to take a sustainable development approach. So having done it around the edges, the easy bits, why not go to the core? Why not introduce sustainable development and sustainability principles into this bill? The Government refused, and in so doing it is, in effect, opposing a requirement that all persons exercising responsibilities, powers, or functions under this soon-to-be Act must take account of the health and safety of people and communities and their social, economic, and cultural well-being. The Government is opposing incorporating into this bill the need to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment. It is opposing adding to this bill the need to take account of the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations, and also the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I invite the Government to reflect on what it is doing today by not incorporating sustainability principles into this bill. The Government is saying to the people of New Zealand that it is happy to talk about sustainability but is not happy to practise it. It is all about the talk and not about the walk, and that should be of concern to communities up and down New Zealand, especially when the Government blocked the Greens’ amendments to incorporate local communities, the community economic sector, and relevant environmental and tangata whenua groups in the process of involvement and consultation under this bill.

The domestic manufacturing sector needs to be very, very afraid that we have failed to convince the Government to match the commitment in this bill to exports with an equal commitment to import substitution. The Government rejected our amendment that would require the new trade and enterprise body to contribute to increased import substitution, or, in other words, to buy New Zealand - made, to buy local, and to develop the Industrial Supplies Office, through a range of processes.

That was rejected, as was our request to make sure that anybody who received funding from this organisation met the very same good-employer criteria that the Crown entity itself will have to apply. Indeed, we even wanted the Government to implement its own policies to strengthen that by offering an amendment that the good-employer criteria should have recognition of equal pay for work of equal value. The Labour members voted against that, as, I might say, did members on the other side of the House.

Finally, we thought that there might be one last chance. We thought we might be able to get what Marian Hobbs wants to achieve in this bill, by seeking that the annual report include a statement of sustainability performance covering economic, environmental, social, and cultural outcomes. Did we get that? No, I am afraid we did not. It has been a failure, but it has not been a failure on the part of the Greens. We tried very hard. We tried to ensure that organisations that receive funding from the ministry will live within our natural income rather than deplete our natural capital; that they would move to cleaner production methods, both within industry and in the agricultural sector; that there would be a shift from more toxic to less toxic production methods; that they would address waste management issues in a meaningful way; and that they would engage actively in energy conservation and efficiency. But we have not got those outcomes we were looking for, and that leaves us very, very worried. It leaves us concerned that this new body will continue to fund organisations like Central Plains Irrigation, which does not meet any triple bottom line requirements that we can think of.

I want to take a relatively short call to canvass three or four issues. I start by saying that National does support this legislation. Conceptually, we think it is right. We believe strongly in the concept of a one-stop shop that brings these types of business structures together, which makes it easy for businesses to interact. The difficulty, though, that I foreshadow is that there are 32 different funding agencies out there, and it would have been nice if the legislation had cast its net wide enough to incorporate these organisations into the new structure.

I foreshadow another concern—that the two entities really have not been merged; they have been lumped together. A true merger, which is fairly technical and sophisticated, looks for synergies from the two different entities and tries to put those together so that there is more focus on one’s business, with less bureaucracy, and, of course, less compliance cost, and a sharper structure. I simply argue that if one puts two small bureaucratic entities together, one ends up with one bigger bureaucratic entity, and it will not have sufficient focus.

One has to ask oneself why that is being done. That question has been posed simply because I cannot find an answer—and I know that the select committee could not get an answer—to the question of whether a cost-benefit analysis had been done to support the decision-making process that underpinned the merger. There is no doubt that the select committee was not alone in that concern, because business after business around the country was approached. Their position was that they were not consulted and they were not aware of any cost-benefit analysis that has helped the Government make that decision. I foreshadow those issues as concerns.

I now turn to the bill itself, and in particular to clause 9(b). If members will bear with me I shall read some of that clause: “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 ...”, and so forth. I have to say to members that I am not sure what that means. If I were an investor, and if this were a private entity, I do not think that would make me reach for my cheque book. I do not think that that would spin the wheels. [Interruption] If Mr Peck wants me to take longer, I will be happy to. He can just keep going. If that is the way the Government wants it, I will.

Another area of concern is the unnecessary detail that has been written into the bill. In particular, I refer to schedule 2, which deals with membership of the board. There is a saying in business that there is no point in having a dog and barking too. Why not simply appoint a board and let it manage according to normal commercial practice? I believe that schedule 2 and its 18 clauses could have been reduced to one clause with wording such as: “The board will act in accordance with standard commercial practice, being cognisant at all times of its fiducial responsibilities.” That would be the end of the story. It would have covered the whole shooting match. Instead, we have not gone down that track.

I said that I would take a short call and, because of the hour, I will conclude on that point. I thank the House for its indulgence.