Tuesday, 17 June 2003
Volume 609
Sitting date: 17 June 2003
Tuesday, 17 June 2003
Tuesday, 17 June 2003
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Privilege
Select Committee Reports—Confidentiality
Mr SPEAKER: I have received a complaint of a matter of privilege relating to an article published in the Sunday Star-Times of 8 June 2003, headed “Latimer under fire for fees labelled ‘grossly excessive’ ”. The newspaper report purports to summarise the contents of a draft report of the Māori Affairs Committee on its inquiry into the Crown Forestry Rental Trust—an inquiry that has not yet been the subject of a report to the House.
Under Standing Order 237(2), a draft report of a select committee is strictly confidential to the committee until the committee reports to the House. Divulging the proceedings or report of a select committee contrary to the Standing Orders may itself be treated as a contempt under Standing Order 397(m). I find that the article does constitute a question of privilege in that a breach of Standing Order 237(2), and hence a contempt under Standing Order 397(m), may have occurred. The question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1 to Minister
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We submitted this question to the Prime Minister because we believed that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is coordinating the Government’s sustainable development programme. We wonder how the Minister for the Environment can respond to such a wide-ranging question, and we ask whether we can assume that the Minister for the Environment will be in a position to answer all our questions, if this question No. 1 is referred to that Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: The question was transferred on the ground that the Minister has some delegated authority, which was set out in the delegations published.
Development—Sustainable Development Programme
1. ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: What steps has the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet taken to ensure that “Sustainable development must be at the core of all government policy.”, as announced in the Sustainable Development for New Zealand: Programme of Action, launched in January this year?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has informed all chief executives about the principles for policy and decision making in the sustainable development programme of action. It also leads a cross-Government coordinating group from 11 agencies that is currently focusing on energy, water, child and youth development, and sustainable cities in New Zealand.
Rod Donald: If sustainable development must be at the core of all Government policy, why is it not part of the purpose of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill; and why are there no sustainable development criteria against which grants to be made by the new Crown entity are to be assessed?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS: As I understand, the member has written a Supplementary Order Paper to that bill. I understand that that Supplementary Order Paper is not needed, because there is a clear reference to sustainable economic development in clause 9(1)(a) of the bill.
David Parker: What reports has the Minister received on triple bottom line reporting in New Zealand’s public sector?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Triple bottom line reporting is one way of measuring and reporting on progress towards sustainability. The Ministry for the Environment’s recently released triple bottom line report has received a special mention in the world-leading Global Reporting Initiative update for being a world first for a Government agency.
Rod Donald: Is she concerned that most Government departments, Crown entities, and State-owned enterprises have conceded, in answers to written questions, that they have not put in place triple bottom line reporting criteria, despite the Minister stating that triple bottom line reporting, is part of a whole-of-Government programme to find better ways of measuring and reporting on progress towards sustainability, in only March of this year?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I concede that this is not an instant turn-round, which the member is asking for. Rather, it is a gradual approach towards ensuring that all our policies and programmes meet sustainable criteria.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: If sustainable development must be at the core of all Government policy, will she recommend to her colleague the Minister for Economic Development that all funding from Industry New Zealand should be subject to the recipient implementing state-of-the-art energy efficiency in its buildings, processes, and transport?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Energy efficiency—as well as a secure energy supply and a commitment to increase renewable energy—is a part of the sustainable development programme.
Sue Kedgley: If sustainability must now be at the core of all Government policy, is the Government developing an alternative model of measuring growth that does not count as positive tobacco and alcohol sales, the costs of cleaning up pollution, road accidents and deaths, the accumulation of waste, and so forth?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The proactive focus of the sustainable energy programme run by the Government is on water allocation and water quality, energy, youth development, and sustainable cities. Further work in areas like health, on specific issues like those the member mentioned, will be taken up as we complete those programmes.
Tranz Rail—Government Policy
2. Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the Minister of Transport’s comments that the Government would not get into a bidding war if Toll upped its bid for Tranz Rail; if so, why?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes, for the very good reason that he was repeating comments I had made earlier.
Hon Roger Sowry: Has the Minister, or any of his representatives, met with Toll Holdings since it upped its bid, and will he, or any of his representatives, meet with Toll before the August shareholding meeting of Tranz Rail; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. A member of my office and a Treasury official met with Mr Little yesterday. I am really not clear whether there will be another meeting. It is also fair to say that Toll was not really clear about some of the aspects of its bid.
Lynne Pillay: What are the Government’s objectives in the offer it has made to Tranz Rail?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We want to regain control of the track so that we can enforce performance standards on operators, and so that we can secure rail as a vital piece of infrastructure in the national interest.
Peter Brown: Does the Minister believe it is at all possible that the following scenario—that the Government owns the tracks, and Tranz Rail, Toll, and perhaps others, operate trains on them—could emerge, and if that is a possible scenario, will the Government do anything to assist its development?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Under the heads of agreement, the Government will own the track and Tranz Rail will operate the trains on it.
Dr Muriel Newman: How on earth can the Government pretend it is not in a bidding war with Toll when it has promised to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the rail network; and is that hostile approach, using the bottomless pit of taxpayers’ money, an example of how this Labour Government works in partnership with business?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: New Zealand business, in general, has warmly welcomed the Government’s approach on this matter. About the only opposition of any significance that I have heard has come from the National Party and ACT.
Hon Roger Sowry: At the meeting that someone from his office had with Toll Holdings yesterday, was an apology conveyed on his behalf to Toll for his impertinent comments that Toll had “had their chance and blew it”?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, nor did Toll further come the raw prawn with me in relation to its version of previous events.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Government’s proposal for Tranz Rail potentially represent greater value to shareholders, as a long-term strategy, than the current share price or even the price that Toll is offering?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that is fair comment. Indeed, the Toll chairman is quoted as saying that one of the reasons for it upping its price was it was assuming that the Government would own the tracks and carry out the maintenance. We have had to point out to Toll, whose bid seems to have been based on the assumption that there is already a $20 million a year subsidy, that that subsidy does not exist and will not exist unless the Government’s bid is approved.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister of Finance whose understanding of commercial reality we should follow, his or the head of Toll's—given that in 1993 his party did not oppose the sale, even though it was a complete bargain sale to friends of the Labour Party who had subscribed $1 million to its funds in the 1987 election?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can say very clearly that at the meeting held in my office it was made clear to Toll that it was on a collision course with the Government. I have a rather excessively large number of witnesses to that meeting.
Hon Roger Sowry: Does the Minister still believe that Toll is on a collision course with the Government, or was the meeting yesterday part of a patch-up process to enable the two parties to work together?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is fair to say that we still have some doubts about what course Toll is on, so it is hard now to tell whether it is a collision one.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Labour Party’s view be different if, for example, Toll was to put $1 million into its campaign account—as Fay Richwhite did in 1987?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, it would not. But all contributions are gratefully received.
Students—School Decision-making
3. MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) to the Minister responsible for the Education Review Office: Should students be involved in school decision-making; if so, why?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister responsible for the Education Review Office): Yes. A recent report by the Education Review Office indicates that effective student participation in school decision-making contributes to better student motivation and learning, confidence and self-esteem; better school processes, including more successful implementation of school initiatives; improvement in student behaviour, and better relationships between students, teachers, parents, whānau, and the community. In short, student involvement in decision making benefits all those involved.
Mark Peck: How is the Government encouraging schools to promote student participation in decision making if it is so beneficial to schools and their communities?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Making student representation on secondary school boards of trustees mandatory was the first step—although I note it was opposed by members opposite. Secondly, I will be commending the Education Review Office report on the topic as containing useful examples of best practice in student participation and how it can be promoted. Thirdly, the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Youth Affairs will develop generic guidelines for schools, communities, and Government organisations on how to involve children and young people in their work.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: If the Government is so interested in the rights of students, why has it adopted a draconian zoning policy that takes away from students the most fundamental decision—which school they go to? Surely, that is a far more important way for students to have a say in their education than one in 500 students being on a board of trustees?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Quite simply, this Government believes in the right of local people to go to local schools. The Opposition believes in the right of people being able to buy their way into schools by donations and old-boy arrangements.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have heard the comments made by Mr Mallard. We are one of the Opposition parties, and we do not believe in the kind of corrupt practice beloved of the Labour Party.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I want to make it clear that my comments referred to the ACT party and the National Party.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister say to this House that his policy somehow has got away from students from wealthy families being able to buy into properties, when every single real estate agent in Auckland knows that the Minister’s zoning policy has had a huge impact on house properties, and that his policy, as shown by the records and reports since it has been in place, has involved a higher price for people—and I go back to the original question and ask the Minister why will he not let students decide for themselves which school they go to?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There has never been a policy in New Zealand where students decide when there is a limit on places in schools. The policy in the past has been to let the schools decide on the basis of old-boy networks, and that is just not on.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister maintain that answer, given that since his Government has been in office the number of schools with zones that take away student choice has increased from 320 to nearly 600, and that even in communities like Gore—hardly communities that would be described as having huge growth difficulties—there are now school zones, and can the Minister not accept that that huge increase takes away choice for students and parents?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I want to make it quite clear that this Government believes in providing teachers and education services, and not in building massive extra size into schools when they are popular at a particular point in time. That is not efficient, and, on the basis of Gore, there is not a helluva lot that is desirable, as we see in this Parliament, that comes from that area. In fact, I understand the local member is under real threat.
Mr SPEAKER: That last comment was totally unnecessary and out of order.
Ron Mark: Given the expressions of concern about students not being able to choose which school they go to, or specifically being locked out of those schools, how does the Minister think the parents of those students feel when they see floods of foreign students buying their way into those very same schools, supposedly in the very manner that the Minister says he disagrees with?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is one of the issues the Government is looking at, and I welcome representations from the member or his party. I have not received any yet.
Carbine Group—Government Contracts
4. KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by his answer to question for written answer No. 5043 where he stated that “I am advised that the Carbine Group have not been selected and no contract has been entered into.”; if not, why not?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Yes.
Katherine Rich: In the light of a letter dated 2 April 2002 from the Māori Television Service to the Carbine Group, which states: “I am pleased to advise that the board of directors of Māori Television Service have accepted Carbine’s broadcast solution”, which makes it clear that the Minister’s response just 1 month later was incorrect, will he now correct that response?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: No. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I warn members that I am not going to tolerate interjections from anyone while questions are being asked.
Mahara Okeroa: Was any independent advice given to the Māori Television Service about whether there was a contract with the Carbine Group?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Yes. Independent advice was provided by Ernst and Young in May 2002. That company concluded that no binding commitments had been entered into by the Māori Television Service with the Carbine Group.
Rodney Hide: Can the Minister confirm that the Māori Television Service board had signed off the Carbine Group’s “broadcast solution” before Mr John Davy confirmed the deal in writing on 2 April 2002, and how come he, as Minister, and his officials in their oversight role, did not know about that when signing off parliamentary questions to this House?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: No contract was entered into with the Carbine Group.
Katherine Rich: Which part of the following quote does the Minister not understand, and I read from the letter from the Māori Television Service to the Carbine—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: There might be an implied ironic comment there, but I would like the member to ask a question. I invite her to do so.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have warned this side of the House not to interject. Sitting on your right is the Hon Trevor Mallard, who interjected sharply—not through a point of order, but by way of interjection—and you did nothing.
Mr SPEAKER: I have not finished what I was doing. The Minister of Education will now leave the Chamber.
Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.
Katherine Rich: Can the Minister explain his earlier answers in the light of the fact that there is a letter from the Māori Television Service to the Carbine Group, reading as follows: “I am pleased to advise that the board of directors of Māori Television Service have accepted Carbine’s broadcast solution.”; and what does the Minister not understand about that?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I understand it quite clearly. There was no contract entered into by the Māori Television Service with the Carbine Group.
Mahara Okeroa: Given that Te Puni Kōkiri was acting for the Māori Television Service during its establishment period, did Te Puni Kōkiri ever draft a contract between the Maori Television Service and the Carbine Group?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: No.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case, why did his letter not say such a thing, rather than make it clear to all and sundry that on the face of that letter a party had been chosen, and that in all respects a contract would have been decided upon; why did he not say “subject to a satisfactory contract”, when he advised this House?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister cannot be expected to explain why Mr Davy did not do certain things. Mr Davy is a convicted fraudster, and I understand he has since left the country.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: He is the Minister of Māori Affairs. His job is to explain how it was that correspondence got into the public domain that clearly indicated that a selection had been made. The days of passing the buck to every civil servant, rather than the Minister, are over.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I will ask the Minister to comment.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I have consulted the minutes of the board meetings of the Māori Television Service. The board clearly favoured the Carbine proposal at an early stage, but in the end no contract was entered into, nor was any decision taken without the approval at that time of the chief executive officer of Te Puni Kōkiri.
Katherine Rich: I seek leave to table the document from the Māori Television Service to the Carbine group.
Document not tabled.
Immigration, Minister—Confidence
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she still have confidence in the Minister of Immigration; if so, why?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister, when can she finally get in contact with her job so that people like Jin Ao and Miss Tang Ying—who were brought to the attention of the New Zealand Immigration Service, who were involved with the company, Student Compass, producing and selling false English-language test certificates, and who are still here on student permits whilst currently engaged in further business enterprises—can be eradicated from immigration, along with these hundreds and hundreds of cases of fraudulent, improper, and inappropriate activities?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If the member has specific cases of wrongdoing, he should refer them to the appropriate authorities.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What on earth is the Prime Minister doing keeping the Minister of Immigration in her job if all of a sudden it is my job and my colleagues’ job to inform the department about the mess that is going on, in the same way as on the Assignment programme, when she looked so embarrassed after alleging there was no fraud and had to face a whole computer dialogue of it going on; when will she start doing her job and act like a Prime Minister? [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: The Hon David Carter will leave the Chamber. I said there would be no interjections during question time. The member will now restate the question.
Hon David Carter withdrew from the Chamber.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does the Prime Minister think that it is all of a sudden my job or my colleagues’ job to tell the Minister of Immigration about the mess that is going on in her portfolio—as happened on the Assignment programme, when we had the very undignified sight of a Minister claiming that no fraud was going on and the Assignment programme producing, right in front of her face, numerous advertisements about fraud relating to qualifications in the Auckland area—and when will the Prime Minister get this Minister to do her job properly?
Mr SPEAKER: There are two questions already.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is the responsibility of every citizen to report wrongdoing to appropriate authorities, and it will be investigated.
Roading—Auckland
6. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Minister of Finance: Will the Government adopt United Future’s suggestion made on 19 December 2002 and repeated on 4 June 2003, to make up the shortfall in the level of funding available for fixing Auckland’s road congestion by using Government borrowing?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): No decisions have been taken about alternative further forms of funding, but the costs to the whole economy of Auckland’s roading congestion are recognised and we are exploring options to address the problem.
Gordon Copeland: Is one reason that the financing of Auckland’s roading is a high priority for Government that Auckland’s traffic congestion is estimated to be costing the economy $1 billion per annum, and would the gains from reducing this congestion provide an economic payback on any Government borrowing?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. I would be somewhat dubious about tying borrowing to general returns in the economy, as opposed to specific funding strengths.
Clayton Cosgrove: What are the fiscal implications of borrowing to support investment in Auckland’s roading system.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government’s debt position is sufficiently robust that we could borrow whilst also maintaining our target of keeping gross debt below 30 percent of gross domestic product.
Dr Don Brash: Why would the Government even contemplate borrowing to fund high-yielding infrastructure projects while at the same time it is planning to invest billions of dollars in low-yielding shares and bonds in overseas markets?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member’s lack of faith in the long-term future of capitalism continues to astound me.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Dr Brash has asked a question that has exercised in a positive way the minds of most economists in this country, and of people who handle retirement funds. It is a fair and reasonable question. That the Minister cannot answer it is no reason he should denigrate someone’s understanding of capitalism, of which he has not a very good grasp, obviously.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the Hon Dr Cullen could add a sentence or two.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I could refer the member to many sources indicating that roughly over the last 80 years the yield on equities has outperformed the yield on bonds by about 7 percent per annum, on average.
Larry Baldock: Can the Minister give some assurance to the residents and businesses of Tauranga that in the light of the economic significance of the Port of Tauranga, the Government is also working to allow for creative solutions to the $450 million strategic roading network funding shortfall there?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Despite the absence overseas of the Hon Margaret Wilson, the issues in Tauranga remain close to the Government’s heart.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister really think that building John Banks’ wish list of new motorways in Auckland will fix congestion, despite Infrastructure Auckland’s advice that even finding and spending all that shortfall over 10 years will see congestion 50 percent worse on the isthmus and 10 to 20 percent worse in the west and the south; if so why does he believe that?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think, if I could put the counterfactual, that if we were to close half the present roads the member’s logic would suggest that congestion would decrease.
Peter Brown: Noting the Minister’s earlier answer, in which he referred to a specified level of debt, can I take it that he is telling this House he prefers borrowing to be kept at a specified level rather than address our roading problems?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Under the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the Government is required to set targets for such matters as debt, and sticking to those targets, once specified, is very important in terms of credibility.
Gordon Copeland: Will the Government consider allocating the 18.5c per litre, currently collected on petrol and diverted straight into the consolidated account to road-related expenditure to service any borrowings that might be undertaken, and other measures, given that a huge investment in roading is required right throughout New Zealand; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. All the studies that have been done—and further work is to be released before too long—show that the Government is not recovering the full economic cost of roading in New Zealand. There is not a case to be made for reducing the amount of money that is used out of that excise duty for other purposes.
Breast Cancer—Radiotherapy Waiting Times
7. Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) to the Minister of Health: Why are women with breast cancer still suffering delays of 12 weeks or more in Christchurch and Wellington to access radiotherapy when a new worldwide study clearly shows that patients waiting more than 8 weeks for radiotherapy have significantly higher local recurrence rates?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): I am advised that in recent months no patients in Wellington have waited more than 12 weeks for radiotherapy. In Christchurch there are nine patients who are waiting more than 12 weeks, and they are booked to start next week. Another nine are required to wait before receiving radiotherapy because they are undergoing other treatment, as required by clinicians.
Dr Lynda Scott: Why is it that Australia can offer New Zealand patients needing breast cancer or prostate cancer radiotherapy a wait of only 4 to 6 weeks while in New Zealand women have to risk losing their life, or at the very least their breast, because of this Minister’s inability to solve the waiting time problem, despite her saying in 1998: “It is unbelievable that people may have to travel to Australia for what should be relatively routine treatment, which is supposed to be a core service.”?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I stand by the comments I made in 1988, which the member has just read out. This Government has made huge progress in providing radiation therapy in New Zealand. For example, when I became the Minister of Health, 16 radiotherapists were being trained each year; 38 are now being trained—
Opposition Member: Where are they, then?
Hon ANNETTE KING: For the information of the member who is baying over there, they take 3 years to train. The first of those 38 graduates will come out at the end of this year. Perhaps at last some real progress will be made. This is something that that party was warned about in 1996, and it did nothing.
Steve Chadwick: Is the time that patients are required to wait for cancer treatment improving?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes. I am advised that overall there has been an improvement in the waiting times for radiotherapy in New Zealand, at all cancer centres. They have all made a huge effort to recruit staff. It has had to be from overseas, because we have not trained enough of our own. They have streamlined their processes and are using the option of treatment in Australia so they can ensure that, in the meantime, women and men get appropriate treatment in a timely fashion.
Pita Paraone: What is the point of women obtaining mammograms, and undergoing surgery where needed, when the essential radiotherapy they require is not made readily available, thus negating both the mammogram and surgery?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Radiotherapy for women requiring treatment is available in New Zealand, and we are improving on the time that they receive access to it. Mammography is a screening programme to help ensure that women have the best possible approach and advice and that, if they do have a problem, it is caught at an early stage.
Heather Roy: Given that the Ministry of Health’s radiation treatment booking priorities recommend radiotherapy treatment within 4 weeks, why is she not intervening to ensure that patients are given the option of having treatment in Australia, in line with those guidelines, which is much earlier than the current 12-week wait patients in Wellington must endure?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The member misunderstands the categories for waiting. In fact, people who require urgent treatment for radiotherapy do not have to wait 12 weeks. The New Zealand cancer treatment working-party put in place the four different categories. People who are waiting 12 weeks for treatment have had to have chemotherapy or other treatment first. This Government has not stopped people from going to Australia. In fact, we have ensured that people can have access to treatment in Australia—so we can provide the treatment—until we have enough of our own trained workforce to provide it in New Zealand.
Dr Lynda Scott: What is her response to constituent Margaret Morice, who writes: “This delay amounts to fourteen or fifteen weeks after surgery”—in Wellington—“and is totally unacceptable. Again I reiterate my confoundment and despair with the health system which is third rate ... I am sorry I am not a famous person or even a damn boat in which case more money would have been readily available for staff and equipment.”; and when will she as Minister stop blaming National and face the fact that it is the Labour Government that is failing absolutely miserably to deliver an adequate health system to New Zealand?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The person who wrote to that member is incorrect. We are providing a very good health service in New Zealand, and nobody in Wellington is having to wait longer than 12 weeks for cancer treatment. If that member and her party are so interested in cancer treatment, why did they take no notice of the reports they received in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, telling them that if they did not train more radiation therapists we would have a crisis in New Zealand? We have had to deal with that, and, fortunately, we have made some real progress.
Dr Lynda Scott: Why has she failed for 4 years to find a long-term solution to the radiation therapy waiting problem, and why is $16,000 per patient still being spent to send patients to Australia, rather than developing a public-private partnership in New Zealand that would see new equipment costs shared and that equipment utilised much more effectively?
Hon ANNETTE KING: This member has raised that issue before, and it shows a high level of naivety. There might be a private provider with a piece of machinery. Who operates it? Do we get the cleaner to operate it, or do we get a trained staff member to operate it? How can it be operated unless we have trained the people to do it? New Zealand was training 16 people a year. We could not even replace the people who were leaving. It has taken us 3 years to train the 38 people we will get at the end of this year. Why did that not start in 1996, when the previous Government was told?
Dr Lynda Scott: I seek leave to table the study from the Journal of Clinical Oncology called “Does Delay in Starting Treatment Affect the Outcomes of Radiotherapy? A Systemic Review”.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Dr Lynda Scott: I seek leave to table a letter from Margaret Morice talking about her view that the health system in New Zealand is failing miserably.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Curriculum—Adequacy
8. DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) to the Associate Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to ensure that the New Zealand curriculum continues to meet the needs of New Zealand students?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Education): Yesterday I released a curriculum stocktake report, which contains the findings of a detailed 3-year study into the effectiveness of the New Zealand curriculum. The stocktake has reassured us that the New Zealand curriculum has a sound structure and measures up to all international standards.
David Benson-Pope: Can the Minister please detail some of the key recommendations of the curriculum stocktake report?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS: One of the report’s recommendations is that schools offer second language instruction for all students in years 7 to 10—that is, the old Form 1 to Form 4. This new second language initiative would strengthen a student’s understanding of English grammar and extend students’ knowledge of other languages and the values that those languages express.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that the latest international study on literacy levels shows that New Zealand, which once ranked first, in fact ranks 13th, or the second-bottom of all English-speaking countries, when is this Government going to put in place a proper assessment policy that ensures we can measure the level of achievement within the curriculum?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I have a slight difficulty here. Although I am responsible for the curriculum part of the curriculum assessment and the professional development pedagogical part of delivering what students learn, I cannot answer that precise question on the assessment. I ask the member to refer it to the Minister of Education.
Stephen Franks: Will the Minister undertake that requiring a second language in the curriculum does not mean compulsory Māori language classes for the thousands of children in schools that cannot offer more than Māori, and what assurance can she give that this is not more than a disguise for sneaking in mandatory Māori for those hundreds of thousands of children?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Quite simply, I can assure the member to the degree that at present we have curriculum statements for the following languages: German, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Samoan, Korean, French, Cook Islands Māori, and, of course, te reo Māori. We also have curriculum statements in draft form for Nuiean, Tokelauan, Tongan, and te reo Māori as a second language instead of as a primary language. This is a genuine, second-language policy.
Opposition Member: Answer the question.
Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I did.
Te Māngai Pāho—Māori Sportscasting International
9. RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Did the contract with Māori Sportscasting International for coverage of the New Zealand Māori rugby tour of Australia specify a replacement commentator for Mr Tame Te Rangi, and was the New Zealand Māori versus Australia game in Perth on 15 June 2002 broadcast by Māori Sportscasting International as specified in the contract?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): The contract between Te Māngai Pāho and Māori Sportscasting International did not specify a replacement commentator for Mr Te Rangi. Te Māngai Pāho has been advised by Sky television that a broadcast did take place.
Rodney Hide: How come this Minister or his officials do not realise that following the $18,000 grant approval on 30 May 2002, Mr Hemana Waaka flew business class the very next day to Brisbane, where he picked up his brother D J Waaka to replace Mr Tame Te Rangi for a 3-week jaunt around Australia, and that Mr Waaka and his brother, after flying from Brisbane to Perth business class, and staying in Perth for a nice week, did not even commentate and broadcast the game between Australia and the New Zealand Māori, because “they couldn’t be bothered”?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I have heard that allegation. Any breach of the contract is for Mr Gardiner to follow up on.
H V Ross Robertson: Is the Minister satisfied that the interim chair, Mr Wira Gardiner, is taking decisive action surrounding Te Māngai Pāho?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Yes, most certainly.
Katherine Rich: Will the Minister now call for an immediate and comprehensive review and audit of every Te Māngai Pāho funding decision for the last 3 years, given that both the chairman and chief executive officer knew that Mr Tame Te Rangi had recommended the $18,000 funding for his trip 3 days before Mr Waaka and Mr Te Rangi were scheduled to depart, yet still approved the funding 1 day before Mr Waaka was due to depart, having declined Mr Te Rangi leave; or does this Minister think that kickbacks, last-minute approvals for funding, money spent on 3-week holidays in Australia, and contracts that are not even fulfilled, let alone monitored, are acceptable?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Most certainly not. That is not acceptable. But can I assure that member that I have tried to fix it up and I will fix it up. That is the role, and, if the member did not understand, a review is being undertaken by Mr Gardiner.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister brought to his attention his responsibilities, which are to have found out himself some time during the last 12 months of this very serious breach what was going on, and to undertake his responsibilities as a Minister of Māori Affairs in any responsible Cabinet; or has she told him that he could have second or third-class standards because he is Māori?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As a member of the tangata whenua, can I say quite clearly that Ministers rely on quality information and advice.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a very particular question, which was whether the Prime Minister had brought to his attention over the last 12 months his responsibility as a Minister of Māori Affairs in respect of this breach, which has been alive for 12 months now, or whether she had told him he could follow second or third-class standards because he is a Māori. Neither of those questions was answered. I do not know what the tangata whenua has to do with it. Well, I know what that means here—we all do. I will explain what it means. Referring to the fact that someone is tangata whenua—that is, of the land—has no bearing on this issue whatsoever, because this is of the airwaves. I want the Minister to answer my question.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am more than aware of my responsibilities, and I am not a second-class citizen in this country.
Hon Ken Shirley: Does the Minister find it peculiar that in spite of Te Māngai Pāho funding, no Māori language broadcast of the rugby match in Perth on 15 June actually occurred, and not a single person complained or even noticed the omission at the time; what does this tell the Minister?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Yes, and Mr Gardiner is investigating it.
Rodney Hide: Can the Minister explain to this House and to the public of New Zealand why, under his administration, Te Māngai Pāho funded two Māori sportscasters—namely, Māori Sportscasting International and Ruia Mai—$18,000 each to travel to Australia and broadcast the very same games in Māori; if this Minister cannot explain that, has he given any consideration to resigning in favour of someone who can explain?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Mr Gardiner is working on that matter, and I have not given any consideration to resigning.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister talked to the Minister about the image this creates for Māori in this country, particularly young Māori, when a Minister she has appointed, and in whom she expresses confidence, performs this way in the House—to the extent that two grave breaches have now been disclosed on this one contract alone, the issue of the broadcast from Perth—and 12 months later has him saying that some other person, namely, Wira Gardiner, will do his job for him?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I spoke to the young leadership group in the town hall yesterday, and those people were very happy with me—like most of the people I talk to. I try to model myself on the elder statesman of Māori in this House, and to follow the way he performs. Mr Gardiner worked with him and for him.
Rodney Hide: In the light of the Minister’s utter reliance at question time on the work and findings of Mr Wira Gardiner, is not the clear message to Māori at the next election to vote National in order to get a Minister of Māori Affairs who can come to do the business in Parliament that people expect of any Minister of Māori Affairs, rather than the rhubarb that this Minister dishes up day after day?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Most certainly. I invite that member to come with me on the road to visit Māori at marae and in community groups to see what he has to say in front of them, and to read some of the faxes from Māori people that I have in support of my performance.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that challenge to go to every marae that Parekura Horomia goes on to meet the people—
Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that is not a point of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Rodney Hide: Do you want to come too, Winston?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no. I have been there. I would like, in all fairness, to table the E9 following the 2002 election, which shows the level of Māori support that the National Party had.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.
Rodney Hide: I seek leave to table four documents, which I will go through in turn.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, go through them very briefly, please.
Rodney Hide: The first is the itinerary around Australia for Mr Waaka and Mr Te Rangi.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Rodney Hide: The second document is some pages from the Treasury-led report explaining how Mr Tame Te Rangi was supposed to go, and abdicated.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Rodney Hide: The third document is the list from the web of the hotels they stayed at on their 3-week trip.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Rodney Hide: And the fourth document is the Minister of Māori Affairs’ original answer to written question No. 619—I will give the number because there has been some confusion over these questions—in which the Minister says that the broadcast went ahead when it did not.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that question. Is there any objection? There is.
Welfare—Initiatives
10. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What initiatives has he taken to implement a new approach to welfare?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This Government is, in particular, committed to building the capacity of communities to solve problems for themselves. Yesterday I announced grants from the Social Entrepreneur Fund to 51 community leaders who are working with their communities to introduce a range of policies. Jim Moriarty, for example, is working in youth prisons; Jan Bieringa here in Wellington is working on issues to do with the digital divide; and a number of other projects are under way that will make a great difference to communities around this country.
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: What other partnership approaches to welfare are being pursued by Government?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Alongside social entrepreneurs, the Government is championing a number of partnership initiatives in welfare and employment that strengthen communities in solving problems for themselves. For example, we fund community, Māori, and Pacific organisations to place people in sustainable, open employment. We partner with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs—57 of those mayors—to ensure young people have employment and training opportunities. We directly fund community programmes such as the Stronger Community Action Fund, and we work with community-based organisations to build employment in social service capacity.
Katherine Rich: As he is into his fourth year as Minister, is it not desperate to now start talking about new approaches to welfare, and is the Minister’s getting himself asked patsy questions about his welfare initiatives just indicative of Labour’s worry that it is weak on welfare issues, so it had better scurry about and look as though it is doing something?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Putting aside the invitation to answer in kind, I say no. We have been releasing new policy around partnerships with communities since the first year we came in. We released our overall framework for policy in 2001, which we have been implementing. Far from scurrying around, we are ahead of that player in every sense of the word.
Sue Bradford: As part of the Government’s current review of welfare, is research being undertaken into the potential of a universal basic income as one possible way out of the current costly and inequitable three-tier benefit system?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No. It is not Government policy to introduce what is known as the “UBI”, or the universal basic income. However, we have made it clear that we are interested in simplifying the benefit system to get rid of all the complexities and allow staff to focus on helping people, rather than always processing entitlements.
Judy Turner: What initiatives has he developed to reconcile the paradox between the desperate skills shortages facing industries such as agriculture, forestry, horticulture, building, and other trades and the fact that there is still a significant number of unemployed, or does he agree with his colleague Damien O’Connor that the biggest problem finding workers for the agriculture industry is due to the perception that it is long hours and hard work?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the agriculture industry itself agrees with Damien O’Connor that one of the problems it has is the image of the industry, and it is working hard on that. If I were to identify some of the things we have been doing lately, I would identify the Tertiary Education Commission, the review of the Industry Training Strategy that has now been implemented, Modern Apprenticeships, the Gateway programme, the commitment to 250,000 people in training by the year 2005, $85 million in this Budget, and so on.
Judy Turner: What initiatives is he considering to stop fruit growers from resorting to employing illegal immigrants to harvest their crops, since the lack of pickers has already cost Kerifresh half a million dollars in lost export orders, yet, according to the technical manager, the work is 8.5 hours of working away steadily and it just does not suit a lot of people who get referred to it by Work and Income New Zealand?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The immigration issues are ones that we work on closely with the Minister of Immigration, Lianne Dalziel, but I point to the real success that we have had with seasonal workers in areas like the Hawke’s Bay and the Marlborough-Tasman and Nelson areas. To take the latter one, over the Christmas period the register dropped to 80 people, simply because of the success in getting people on to orchards right throughout that region—and they worked very successfully.
Judy Turner: Will he commit to a reassessment of the way in which Work and Income New Zealand promotes employment opportunities, when the department’s job bank classifies vacancies by geographical location rather than skills required, making it difficult for those actively seeking work in one region to be aware of opportunities in another?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think that is a very good idea, and I am willing to work with the member on it.
Judy Turner: Is the Minister aware of criticisms that the Modern Apprenticeships scheme focuses on above-average students at the expense of those with a lower record of academic achievement, who have to complete costly pre-apprenticeship courses to gain entrance and are, arguably, most likely to benefit from the scheme?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have heard that, but do not regard it as a criticism. The Modern Apprenticeships programme is a prestige programme; people who want to get on it should take pre-employment programmes so that they can step themselves up and cope with the work.
Memorial—Sir Peter Blake
11. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: What does the Government regard as the most appropriate memorial to sailor Sir Peter Blake?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House), on behalf of the Minister for Sport and Recreation: New Zealanders will have different views about how best to remember Sir Peter. He himself donated NZL32 to Te Papa for display. The Blake family have expressed a variety of views, and Te Papa will hold a conference call over the next 36 hours to establish their views. It does, however, appear that differences relate to design details, not to the principle of showing the boat in Auckland.
Keith Locke: How can a glass mausoleum on the Auckland waterfront, as supported by the Minister, be a more appropriate memorial to Sir Peter Blake than a wonderful new island reserve—Kaikoura Island—which was supported by 72 percent of New Zealanders in a poll reported on Television One last night?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The fact remains, the boat is the matter that is identified with Sir Peter—it was his great success in winning the America’s Cup. He wanted Black Magic on display so that all New Zealanders could see the yacht that first brought the cup to New Zealand. I do not believe that all New Zealanders would easily find their way to an island in the Hauraki Gulf, compared with finding their way to the boat in the viaduct area.
Mark Gosche: Can the Minister explain how this proposal came about?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The proposal was developed by a group of people including Te Papa, the National Maritime Museum, the Auckland City Council, and Sir Peter’s close friend, Ross Blackman. Pippa, Lady Blake, welcomed the proposed exhibition, “Blue Water Black Magic”, saying it was a fitting tribute to Peter’s life and works.
Statistics New Zealand—Computer Software Sales
12. DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) to the Minister of Statistics: What success has Statistics New Zealand had in selling software licences for internally developed systems to international statistical agencies?
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Statistics): In recent years Statistics New Zealand earned $804,000 in software licences through sales of internally developed systems to statistical agencies in Ireland, South Africa, and Fiji. It has also sold a licence for its balance of payments system to the Central Bank of Estonia.
Darren Hughes: What non-financial benefits are derived from licensing software to, and exchanging software with, agencies in other countries?
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: Exchanging data-processing techniques with other statistical agencies helps Statistics New Zealand access techniques that enhance its operational capacity. It gives me great pleasure to be part of a Government that can take pride in Government agencies’ success in developing information technology systems, rather than finding them a source of controversy and embarrassment.
Bills
New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill
Instruction to Committee
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Noes 47
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Motion agreed to.
In Committee
Clause 1 Title
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty): This bill currently before the Committee, originally introduced to the House with the title the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill, has since become the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill. It is a bill that seeks to move some way down the track towards equating with the proposals of the National Party that the various business support agencies within New Zealand should be amalgamated in one authority. It provides that two of those agencies, Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand, should be amalgamated.
During this Committee stage the National Party wants to do a number of things. The first thing we will do, of course, is to propose a number of very well-thought-out amendments that provide for an increased number of agencies to be incorporated in this authority. We will propose to change the name of this authority and to remove the considerable influence of, and potential for meddling by, Ministers that this bill proposes. We will also seek to ensure that prudent management of the taxpayer’s money is an overarching principle with regard to this new authority.
We have moved a number of amendments to the title, because we believe it should more fairly reflect not only what is proposed in the bill but also what the bill will look like after the National Party’s substantial amendments are passed by the Committee. I say that with some confidence, because I am convinced that if the parties in the House genuinely want to support the development of private enterprise and of an export-oriented economy in this country, they will back amendments to roll into this organisation the 32 different granting authorities that currently exist in this country to support business. There is no point in including only two of them in this bill; we should put in the whole lot—all 32.
Very shortly we will be tabling amendments that propose a number of changes to the title. In particular, I recommend to the Committee that it support my amendment to change the title to the “Investment New Zealand Bill”, because the authority that we want to set up, according to our policy, is an agency to be called “Investment New Zealand”. We believe that it would bring a much stronger focus to the effort that we want from this sort of authority. We do not want it to be limited solely to Industry New Zealand, which is now a tainted and discredited brand. We do not want to undermine the good work of Trade New Zealand. We want to have a new authority that gives clear direction as to what we are telling overseas people that this authority will do. It is about investment in New Zealand, so the title should correctly reflect that.
If members do not want to support that amendment, then I have another amendment that reflects clearly what is being proposed in this bill—the “Amalgamation of Trade and Enterprise Services Bill”. That title more fairly reflects what this bill will look like after the National Opposition’s amendments are made, but it is certainly not inconsistent with what is proposed in the bill at this time. I foreshadow that we intend to debate rigorously, right through the night and into tomorrow afternoon, the fact that this bill does not go far enough. The title limits what the bill can do; it shows the limits on the vision of this Government. We want to lift those limits, and to include in this bill the rest of the 32 granting agencies and funds that assist business. We want to have a much more efficient use of the taxpayer’s money, and to expunge from New Zealanders’ memories the disaster that has been Industry New Zealand.
Case after case—Sovereign Yachts, New Zealand Yachts—shows there has been a failed investment by Industry New Zealand. Huge amounts of money have not been granted. That money did not get into the pockets of those who sought it. It is a system that does not encourage small-business people to make use of the funds. The Committee will be hearing about the advice we have received from both small-town and big-city accountants about how difficult it has been for their organisations.
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): I want to speak to the title and, like my colleague, to advise that the National Party caucus supports this bill. I will be tabling an amendment to the title, and I hope the Committee will support me. I want this bill to be called the “Jim Anderton Self-promotion Bill”, and I will talk about why I want it entitled that.
I draw the Committee’s attention to a press release that Mr Anderton made in the Northern Advocate on 10 December, in which he told Northlanders that Santa had come to town and a bucket of money was arriving. He told them to stand back, because he was on the way and things would come right. Mr Anderton put out a big press statement, and I recall at the time reading the article in the Northern Advocate and thinking it was great, and that if the Minister was going to do that for Northland I would be with him. That is what I thought, even though I am opposed to Mr Anderton’s policies and philosophy. I thought that if he would make things better for Northland, I would support him in that. I came out publicly the next day, in the paper, and congratulated the Minister. I said that if he did all the things he had spoken about on 10 December in the Northern Advocate, then good on him. I said I would work with him because I would be happy to see that happen.
But what a disgrace that Minister has turned out to be. He has been an absolute failure. I want him to tell the Committee today what progress he has made in his portfolio for Northland, in the context of the press statement he put out. It is an absolute shambles up in Northland. In that article Mr Anderton said he had already met with the local mayors and iwi, and was impressed by the commitment of Northland regional leaders to job creation, particularly for young school-leavers. I am sure he was, because I know those people were committed to that. They still are. The sad thing is that Mr Anderton, the Minister in the chair, was not. That is the problem. That press release was just self-promotion by Jim Anderton. He has been an absolute failure. He should be ashamed of himself for coming up to Northland and trying to get Northlanders to think that things would happen, when they have not happened, at all.
Although I support this bill, I say to the Minister he should get going and make something happen, instead of issuing the farcical, self-promotional stuff that we have had. I remember him in the House, a week or two after that press release, getting someone to ask a question and then berating and denigrating me, because I had gone out there and supported him. Well, I have to say he was right and I was wrong; I should not have supported him. I do not want to be in the camp of that failed Minister. The mayors in Northland—and the Committee will want to know this, so I will put this on the record—are saying they should forget it. They say they have put up project after project, and proposal after proposal, to that Minister and his department, and have not received a solitary sausage. Nothing!
The Minister will stand up shortly and wax lyrical, saying that I do not know what I am talking about. He will say this and that are happening. Well, that will all be hot air and wind from this Minister—nothing. Let him point to something substantial that has happened. I just say thank goodness we have some leaders in Northland who are trying to make things go, despite having this Minister and his department in the place. I will be talking later on during the debate on this bill about some of the personal failures that have happened as a consequence of this Minister’s policies—some of the lack of impact that he has had on people who had good ideas, and who wanted to make progress. This Minister and his team of people have let them down.
I tell the Minister in the chair that he can stand up in this Committee and say what he likes. He can tell this Parliament how good this legislation is and what a difference this bill will make. Well, I wish he were right. But if news of that gets up into Northland, I tell the Minister that people there will not believe him. No one there now believes him. He has no credibility in Northland, at all—none whatsoever. If the Minister thinks he can carry on promoting himself and his party—whatever it is—through this sort of legislation, he is mistaken. He has become an absolute joke. Along with a number of other Ministers in that Cabinet, Mr Anderton needs to go. He is an absolute failure, and this bill will not save him.
Putting these two departments together will not save this Minister. It is a good idea to put the two departments together in order to cut down on some of the bureaucracy, but I only wish some of the bureaucrats could get down to addressing what New Zealanders really want, and, instead of getting in their way, could get beside people and make things happen.
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Just before I call the next speaker and hear Mr Jones’ point of order, I remind members that this bill has been to the Commerce Committee, so therefore the title debate is confined to the title.
DAIL JONES: When the last vote was taken, I inadvertently voted 12 for New Zealand First, when I should have voted 13. Can I seek leave now, or shall I wait until Mr Speaker comes back, to alter the New Zealand First vote?
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That change has to be made in the House.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): ACT New Zealand is apparently the only party opposing this bill. In speaking to the title of this legislation, I note that the previous legislation was called the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill. Therein lies the real problem. ACT is asking what the role of the Government is. Is it the role of the Government to keep setting up new organisations and shuffling the chairs? We say it is not. In looking back at the history of this particular title, members may recall that we used to have the Department of Trade and Industry. In those days there was import licensing and the like, and everyone had to lobby the politicians to get their import licences from the Department of Trade and Industry. That went away, and we set up the Ministry of Commerce. The role of the Ministry of Commerce was the legitimate role of Government—that is, the role of regulator. In other words, all of the regulatory functions that the Government should be performing were tucked into the Ministry of Commerce.
In 1988 we set up the Trade Development Board, and philosophically I would still have to question that. Is it the role of Government to be out there doing the trade? I say that is a function of the private sector—it will do it best. The role of Government is to ease the passage for that trade and get the fundamentals right—certainly, things like tariff barriers between nations are the legitimate role of Government. But when the Government becomes the active player, I think one gets into difficulties. I acknowledge, however, that Tradenz, under the stewardship of Peter Shirtcliffe, did some splendid work in those early years.
In more recent times, we have had the Government getting back into the active player role in promoting industry with Industry New Zealand. We say that is fundamentally flawed philosophically. It is really saying: “I’m from the Government, I’m here to help you, and I’ll bribe you with your own money, and wow, gee, boy, have I got a deal for you!” That is what the Minister in the chair has been doing—he has been going around the country trying to bribe people with their own money. We have already heard of the incredible failures associated with that.
Getting back to the title, essentially we have Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand. It will actually be spelt “INZTNZ”. What sort of State agency will that be? Who wants an “INZTNZ”? ACT says that is not the legitimate role of Government. We know that compliance costs and the taxing of small and medium-sized business are the biggest obstacle to growth and wealth creation in this country. Setting up another super-bureaucracy by melding these two organisations together is not the answer. I heard the National speaker say in relation to the title that his party proposes to set up a new organisation called Investment New Zealand. I am sorry, but ACT opposes that. All that is doing is going back to the Development Finance Corporation. It will fail for the same reasons that the Development Finance Corporation failed. It is not the legitimate role of the Government to be doing those sorts of things. I thought we were past that era.
We have had a long, painful transition in this country. The rest of the world has left us behind on most fronts, and here we are talking about going back to the failed policies of the past. We are doing it, firstly, with Jim Anderton’s Industry New Zealand, which has been going only 2 years—
John Carter: Less.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Less actually, and all we have had is a succession of failures. They are the sorts of failures one expects when one politicises something like the promotion of industry. Why? Because that is not the role of the Government. All one invites is pork-barrel politics, and that is what we have seen. We have mentioned the Sovereign Yachts fiasco, and that was a fiasco.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry, but I did give the member a warning about the title. Please keep to the title.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Indeed, because this is all to do with the title. The title is the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill, and the proposal is to meld Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand into a superministry. ACT says there is no point in playing around with the title. We say that this legislation is wrong in principle from the outset, and we should not be having it in any form whatsoever. That is the essential message from the ACT party.
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I listened with some interest to the speech made by the member who has just resumed his seat. I can relate to the history lesson he gave us, because at various times I was part of it. I began my working career in the Department of Trade and Industry, doing import licensing in the days when it was as corrupt as the member described.
Hon Ken Shirley: It made the member go grey.
Hon PETER DUNNE: Absolutely—and prematurely, I might add. I was subsequently involved in the Government that established the Ministry of Commerce. Indeed, I had a role in that ministry as part of the executive at that time.
This bill is called the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill That title is descriptive of what the bill actually does, which is to integrate the two organisations. I take the rather simple view that because the title states what the bill actually does, it is probably about right as the title of the bill. Some of the more fanciful titles that have been suggested this afternoon are not as accurate in terms of what the bill does as the bill’s actual title—surprise, surprise!
I want to take issue with another point that the member who preceded me raised. He was correct to say that the fundamental question this bill raises is what the role of Government is in this area. Where he and I diverge is that he seemed to assume that the act of integrating Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand into a new organisation somehow made for a bigger super-bureaucracy and a much more activist new organisation than is currently the case, or is proposed by this legislation. I do not believe that any member of this Committee wants to see Big Brother or Big Sister out there trying to dictate the way we operate in the international marketplace. However, there is a place for an agency that integrates both the level of Government assistance to industry in the domestic market with the work we do to facilitate our export opportunities overseas, and that is what this bill attempts to do. Members will be well aware of the constant complaints about the amount of money we invest in export promotion and development not matching the actual needs of the exporters themselves. The link from the domestic economy to the international economy simply has not been addressed before.
The integration of Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand into the new New Zealand Trade and Enterprise organisation that the bill establishes is entirely proper, and for that reason the title proposed is entirely consistent. Some of the other concerns that members have raised will no doubt be debated during the remaining stages of this Committee debate, but I cannot think of a more logical title for the bill than the one that has been proposed.
DAIL JONES (NZ First): As understand it, the title of the bill is to be the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act, whereas some members still seem to think it is called the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill. One of the amendments in the select committee was that this bill be called the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act in due course.
New Zealand First’s criticism of this legislation—and New Zealand First will support it—is that this concept was introduced a couple of years or so ago with a great deal of fanfare by this Minister. He said it would change everything, but we find that the Government could not even agree on the name of the legislation. It is such a simple matter that one would have thought that the ministry, the Minister, and the Government could have got it right but, no, they could not. This whole legislation is an example of how this Government has failed to give officials enough support and encouragement to do their work. That is why this legislation has had to come back to the Committee. It is so symptomatic of the whole situation that even today we have a bill that went to a select committee with one name and came back with another. New Zealand First will support the legislation, but from time to time we will give it some degree of criticism.
One of the things we will raise in connection with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, and, in particular, with this Minister’s role, is how one might develop the area at Whenuapai in Auckland to take trade and enterprise into account, bearing in mind the imminent closure of the Royal New Zealand Air Force airbase at Whenuapai. That is something that an organisation of this kind could be involved in, and perhaps should be involved in. As a member of New Zealand First, I will take a close interest in it.
PANSY WONG (NZ National): I get a bit worried when the Hon Peter Dunne of United Future expresses his support for the bill, when he thinks it is still known as the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill. The new name is the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill. I guess there is an impression that it is not simply an amalgamation of two organisations—Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand. The changed name suggests to the public that the combined organisation will do more in terms of promoting New Zealand trade and the enterprise culture.
First of all, I support the change from the original name, Industry New Zealand. When Industry New Zealand was first set up, I was on the Commerce Committee, and when we conducted a financial review of that organisation, it seemed to be simply full of consultants, advisers, and contractors. Indeed, Industry New Zealand is creating employment, but for its own organisation. It is not encouraging any additional employment out in the public. Everybody has heard about the Sovereign Yachts saga.
I congratulate the Commerce Committee on deleting the name “Industry New Zealand” from this bill, but I support my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall’s proposal that it be known as the “Investment New Zealand Bill”. New Zealand needs to be internationally competitive; we need other international investors to know New Zealand and have confidence in us. So I think that “Investment New Zealand” would be a very good name if, indeed, the intention of this bill is to make sure that New Zealand creates an internationally competitive and attractive investment climate.
The National Party supports the intention of the bill to combine these two organisations. We believe it is a good beginning, but a very small step. The fact that we still have 32 organisations trying to assist business is in itself a worry; it is confusing the various businesses as to which one they should seek assistance from. This bill is a good start, but it is a very small step towards those 32 organisations coming together to pursue a single objective, which is to make New Zealand an internationally attractive investment destination.
The Commerce Committee changed the name to “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise”, and during the Committee stage National wants to see that the bill’s intention is to encourage the enterprising spirit. I will examine that in detail throughout the Committee stage to make sure, for example, that the compliance burden will be lessened, because the aim of the new organisation is to champion a competitive business environment. Many, many times have we heard complaints about compliance costs, and the fact that the Resource Management Act is a barrier to the ability of various business organisations to grow and thrive in New Zealand.
I think this bill is a good move. The coming together of Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand is first step. I compliment the Commerce Committee on deleting the name “Industry New Zealand” from the title of the bill, because in its short duration Industry New Zealand has done nothing but create employment for bureaucracy within its own organisation.
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development): If the member thinks that the people of New Zealand at the local, regional, and business level think Industry New Zealand has done nothing for New Zealand and the business development of this country, then that shows why that party is sitting there and this Government and its supporters are over here with the support we have.
The member who has just spoken indicated that she was amazed that United Future is supporting this bill. She may be equally amazed that her own party is supporting it. The one-stop shop, which is supported overwhelmingly by the business community of New Zealand, was supported, of course, during the election campaign by the Progressive party and the Labour Party, and I am glad that the National Party is also supporting it.
Hon Tony Ryall: We are your party! We’re business.
Hon JIM ANDERTON: Investment New Zealand was one small division, I have to say to Mr Ryall, of Trade New Zealand—that is what it used to be. It was incorporated into Industry New Zealand about a year ago, and now the member wants to name the whole bill after that one small element of Industry New Zealand.
Hon Tony Ryall: You got it. At long last!
Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have to remind the member—and he may well want to discuss this with people, if he ever does talk to the business and regional community of New Zealand—that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will be a developmental agency covering business and industry development in New Zealand as well as incoming investment and development from off shore. It will not be just an investment agency, and to describe it as such would be a misnomer in terms of all the activity it will have to engage in.
I have to say to Mr Carter that the mayors and councillors—
Hon David Carter: Which Mr Carter?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: —of the far north and the Northland region have stated on the record on a number of occasions that they have never, at any time in the history of the north, had such support from, or the presence of, Ministers and Government as they have had from the Ministers and Government represented by the Labour-Progressive coalition.
John Carter: Has the Minister asked them recently?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: I invite Mr Carter to attend any meeting that I attend, and to put it to those meetings that previous Governments of which he was a member did more for the north than this Government has done. He will get an awful shock when he is told what the answer to that is.
The response of business and regions of New Zealand to this step has been incredibly positive. They have wanted this step to be taken, and now it is being taken. I would hope that the Opposition members could actually stop the game playing, and understand, as they clearly do, the need for this legislation, the importance of it, and the support it has across the whole community. I hope that they will let us get on with the job, as we want to get on with it, and stop simply playing games.
As far as Mr Shirley and the ACT party are concerned, the failed policies of the past, which he talked about, are the failed policies of his leader and the current policies of the ACT party that it wants us to go back to. We have no intention of doing that. This bill shows clearly where we intend to go, and the speech made by Mr Shirley tells me where the ACT party is going, and that is nowhere.
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville): I rise on behalf of the National Party to support this legislation. It is a little bit like the singer formerly known as Prince, but now known as a symbol. This bill is now the industry bill, but was formerly known as the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill.
I want to talk for a second about why we support this legislation and this title. It is because National supports business-friendly legislation. So National does support saving some costs, and there has been quite a blowout in costs.
But why, one may ask, is this title such a bland title? The title “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act” is a very bland title indeed. We on this side of the House have put forward some amendments. There have been some ideas from my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall about the name being the “Investment New Zealand Act”. There have been some suggestions from the senior whip about the title being the “Jim Anderton Self-promotion Act”. But we see here the very bland title "New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act".
Why is the title such a bland title? I will inform members of the Committee why the title is so bland. When Jim Anderton established Industry New Zealand he promised up and down this fine land that he would in fact be giving a great many grants out to a great many people, and that it would be a triumph for the “jobs machine”. That is what he promised. Is that what Industry New Zealand has actually delivered? I say "No". It has delivered—
Hon Jim Anderton: Ha, ha!
JOHN KEY: The Minister in the chair laughs. It has a delivered a few jobs—at what cost? It has an operating budget of $45.8 million! One can provide a lot of jobs for $45.8 million. So that bit is out of the title; that keeps it nice and bland.
The second reason the title is nice and bland is that the Minister is embarrassed by the very people who, he said, would create jobs. He went up and down the land and said: “Don’t worry; we’ll be rolling into town with a chequebook. We’ll be rolling into town, buying a few votes and writing out cheques for a few jobs.” He said that people should not worry, because Industry New Zealand—
Hon Tony Ryall: Remember that they were going to be the party of small business?
JOHN KEY: Yes, it was going to be the party of small business, developing businesses up and down the land. He said: “Industry New Zealand—that’s the name. Put it on your fridge, using your fridge magnets. Write it on the back of your notepad. Keep it close. Keep it in your thoughts wherever you go.” That is what he said. He said that "Industry New Zealand" would be the title. He said it would be the thing to remember. Do I see the words “Industry New Zealand” in this title? No. Why? Because the Minister knows he cannot deliver, and the Minister is embarrassed.
I want to raise my own amendment, my own suggestion, which I think would make a great deal more sense than this very bland title “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act.” The Minister may take on board this suggestion; it is a very serious suggestion. In my former commercial life I had the opportunity to be on the board of a multinational that had an operation in Ireland, and we worked very closely with the Irish Development Authority. The word “development” cuts to the heart of the very reason that National supports this legislation. Developing New Zealand, whether it is through investment, the creation of more entrepreneurial ideas, or the support of entrepreneurs, is what this bill is all about. That is how we will have growth in productivity in New Zealand. That is how we will deliver jobs to young people, who are currently leaving and going to Australia. Development is how we will do it.
It will not be done by writing a cheque for a couple of failed losers that the Government could not pick—well, it can pick the losers, actually. I could name a few. [Interruption] I was saving this up for a later debate, but if the senior Government whip wants me to read them out, I am happy to point out that a helluva lot of people who get a grant do not take up the second tranche, because they have gone broke.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): John Carter—sorry, David Parker.
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I heard you call me.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I did not realise that a member over there was standing to call.
JOHN CARTER: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I had not finished calling. I will call the member in a minute.
JOHN CARTER: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You had called my name.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I had not seen there was another call from the other side. I looked at you, and I was going to call, but I did not.
JOHN CARTER: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do realise that you had not seen Mr Parker stand to call. But the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings provide that once a member is called, that cannot be reversed. The fact is that if Mr Parker wants to make a contribution, it would be appropriate for you now to allow me to continue, and he can take the next call.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): All right, carry on.
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): Thank you Madam Chairperson. I want to respond to the Minister’s comments. I am pleased that he took a call. I refer to a press statement he made on 10 December 2002. Indeed, he also had made previous press statements. In his comments he said—and he is quite correct—that the leaders, the mayors, are on record as supporting what he proposed. That is quite correct, and I have no argument with that.
Hon Jim Anderton: No, what we’ve done.
JOHN CARTER: That is a different thing. [Interruption] Yes. They supported his proposal, and they said publicly that it would be good for Northland, and to get on with it. So did I. The Minister harangued me in the House for that. He made a joke, and had all his side laughing about John Carter, the senior National Party whip, coming out in support of it. But I still thought it was great, and so did the mayors, the regional council chairmen, the iwi leaders—the whole lot, indeed.
He said that he had met recently with the Northland Intersectoral Forum, and he had; that is quite right. But I wonder whether Mr Anderton would care to ask those leaders now what they thought. I wonder whether he would like them to make a public statement about what they think of him now. Quite honestly, I tell that failed Minister in the chair that he would not get that same warm response, at all. The mayors and the chairmen of the councils have given up on this Minister, because they know that he and his department are a joke.
The only reason we are having any success at all is that a very good guy called Mike Sims, who is charge of some of this stuff from a local point of view, does a great job.
John Key: And a very good local member, if I might say so.
JOHN CARTER: Absolutely. Personally, I would not want to take any praise myself; it is not in my nature to congratulate myself. Despite this Minister, and despite the failings of his department, which we will talk about when we get to the purpose clause, Mike Sims and his team are making progress. I challenge the Minister to get any one mayor, or regional council chairman, or iwi leader, or any other leader in Northland to state publicly that Jim Anderton is doing a great job.
That is why I have put in an amendment stating that the bill should be called the “Jim Anderton Self-promotion Bill”. [Interruption] If that member over there wants to interject, he should get back to his seat to do so. The fact is this Minister has failed Northland. He said: “In the implementation stages up to $2 million will be available for the region for major priorities you set for your regional development.” That is great, good, and excellent. Where is it? What is it doing? What are we getting out of it? Who does it employ? How has it helped Northland? Not a sausage. If the Minister wants to promote himself, this is his opportunity to lay out that list. If one has $2 million, surely one could buy some success, rather than create it! I thought that that $2 million would expand Northland.
The Minister talks about having 3.5 percent growth, although, according to his last press statement, there was a decline in the last quarter. I would have thought that the Minister would be saying: “I’ve put this money in through my department. I’m the Minister who created this, and this is what it’s done. Look at all this unemployment going down, and all that sort of stuff. There’s more businesses happening. People are better off. We’re getting more taxes.” Well, we in Northland are, because the farmers are doing better—or have been; I have to say they are not doing not so well at the moment. But I am worried about industry. Tourism is doing well, but not because of this Minister.
I have a number of examples where small-business people have gone to the Minister’s department to ask for assistance, and have failed to get it, and that is sad. Although there is a debate to be had about Mr Shirley’s point of view, I want to take some time later during this debate to suggest to the Minister ways in which he could make this work, but it is not working at the moment.
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Noes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Motion agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): We have some amendments to clause 1. The first is in the name of John Carter, which I have ruled out of order as not a proper and serious description of the bill.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to:
to omit the words “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act 2003”, and substitute the words “Amalgamation of Trade and Enterprise Services Act 2003”.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to:
to omit the words “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act 2003”, and substitute the words “Business Support Services Act 2003”.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to:
to omit the words “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act 2003”, and substitute the words “Investment New Zealand Act 2003”.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 102
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Noes 17
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Part 1 Preliminary provisions
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty): 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.
Hon TONY RYALL: 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.
DAIL JONES (NZ First): 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.
DAIL JONES: 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.
DAIL JONES: 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.
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville): 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.
JOHN KEY: 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.
JOHN KEY: 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.
JOHN KEY: 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.
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): 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?
JOHN CARTER: 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.
JOHN CARTER: 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.
JOHN CARTER: 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.
JOHN CARTER: 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!
JOHN CARTER: 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.
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): 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.
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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.
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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.
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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.
John Carter: It’s actually worse than that.
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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.
Hon DAVID CARTER: It could be. It would be a very expensive ticket to Melbourne—
Hon Tony Ryall: Yes, but it’s for expensive hotels.
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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—
John Carter: They need it.
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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?
Hon DAVID CARTER: No, I do not know why.
Gerry Brownlee: He has been selling non-toxic body paint at $2 a time.
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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—
John Carter: How much?
Hon DAVID CARTER: It was $1.5 million.
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development): 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.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): 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?
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): I move, That the question be now put.
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): 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?
ROD DONALD: 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?
ROD DONALD: 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.
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago): I move, That the question be now put.
PANSY WONG (NZ National): 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.
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki): I move, That the question be now put.
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty): 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?
Hon TONY RYALL: 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.
Hon TONY RYALL: 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.
Hon TONY RYALL: 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.
Hon TONY RYALL: 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.
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast): I move, That the question be now put.
DAIL JONES (NZ First): 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.
DAIL JONES: —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.
DAIL JONES: 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!
DAIL JONES: 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.
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 60
Labour 52; United Future 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.
Motion agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 2 be agreed to:
to omit the words “1 July 2003”, and substitute the words “1 January 2004”.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 69
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following the amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 2 be agreed to:
to omit the words “1 July 2003”, and substitute the words “1 July 2006”.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 69
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to:
to omit subclause (1), and substitute the following new subclause:
(1) The purpose of this Act is to amalgamate Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 69
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 3(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Green Party 9.
Noes 108
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to:
to omit the words “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise”, and substitute the words “Investment New Zealand”.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 40
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13.
Noes 77
Labour 52; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to:
to omit from subclause (2) the words “as directed by the Government”, and substitute the words “in accord with Government policy and best commercial practice”.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 69
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to:
to omit from subclause (2) the words “as directed by the Government”, and substitute the words “in accord with prudent management of taxpayers’ money”.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 69
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to:
to omit subclause (3) and substitute the following new subclause:
(3) This Act also provides for other agencies to be amalgamated into the principal agency established by this Act, so as to improve efficiency and effectiveness of business support services.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 69
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to insert new clause 3A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Green Party 9.
Noes 108
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 4 be agreed to:
to omit paragraph (b)(i).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13, ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 4 be agreed to:
to omit paragraph (b)(ii).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13, ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to:
to amend the definition of former agency by adding the following paragraph:
(c) any agency as gazetted from time to time in accord with this Act.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13, ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to:
to omit the definition of member and insert the following definition:
director means a member of the board.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13 ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to:
to amend the definition of NZTE by adding the following paragraph:
(c) includes an agency as gazetted from time to time in accord with the Act.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13, ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 102
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8, Progressive 2.
Noes 17
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.
Part 1 agreed to.
Part 2 New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty): 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.
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): 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.
DAIL JONES (NZ First): 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.
DAIL JONES: 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.
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): 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?
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): 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.
RODNEY HIDE: 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.
RODNEY HIDE: —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.
RODNEY HIDE: 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.
RODNEY HIDE: 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!
RODNEY HIDE: 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.
RODNEY HIDE: 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!
RODNEY HIDE: 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.
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon): 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.
JUDITH COLLINS: 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.
JUDITH COLLINS: 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.
JUDITH COLLINS: 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.
JUDITH COLLINS: 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.
JUDITH COLLINS: 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?
JUDITH COLLINS: 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?
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): 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.
Hon David Carter: A very generous disgrace.
JOHN CARTER: 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.
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, I appreciate that—
Hon David Carter: The Warehouse, where everyone gets a bargain.
ROD DONALD: 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.
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): I move, That the question be now put.
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): 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.
BRENT CATCHPOLE: 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.
BRENT CATCHPOLE: 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?
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast): I move, That the question be now put.
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): 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.
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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?
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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.
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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?
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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.
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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.
Hon DAVID CARTER: The Minister cannot? She ought to get to grips with the portfolio—
Hon Judith Tizard: That’s not how it works.
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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.
Hon DAVID CARTER: 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.
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
PANSY WONG (NZ National): 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.
PANSY WONG: 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.
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki): I move, That the question be now put.
hat the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 69
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Noes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question t
Hon Ken Shirley: Waru kāore whakae.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Would the member care to translate?
Hon Dover Samuels: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Would the Chairperson like me to interpret what the honourable member said, in terms of the vote?
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): If that is acceptable to the Committee.
Hon Dover Samuels: Eight opposed.
Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Is it acceptable, in this Chamber, to have a member of the Government doing an interpretation for an Opposition party?
Rodney Hide: To vote for them.
Hon Ken Shirley: Yes, to vote for them. The basic democratic right is to cast a vote in the Chamber. Our Standing Orders provide that it can be in either of the two languages recognised in this Chamber, and to have a Government member effectively casting the vote for an Opposition party is totally offensive and totally against democratic traditions. I ask that we wait for the interpreter, because I cannot be sure that the member over there got it right.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that. On a simple interpretation, the Committee in the past—and the House—has accepted interpretations from other members. In fact, the Clerk tells me he has an understanding of the Māori language, too.
Hon Ken Shirley: I would be happy if the Clerk were to do the interpretation. I would be very happy to accept that so that we could make progress.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We now have ourselves in a conundrum. The taxpayers pay for a translation. This is an opportunity to speak in Māori—we in the ACT party are trying to improve in that area—and the translation is not to be done by another member. It can be done by a member himself or herself, or by the translator. It seems to me not possible to be able to have it done by the Clerk. If the vote is to be taken, it has to be read into the microphone as a proper translation.
I know the Hon Dover Samuels was trying to help but can you imagine, Mr Chairperson, the mess we would get into if one party started to vote for another party. I do not think that is acceptable from the Government, just as I do not think the Hon Dover Samuels would allow me to interpret his speeches or how he votes, as good as my te reo is. We have a translator for that purpose, and I think the proper procedure, as set out in Speakers’ rulings, is for the translator to provide the translation.
David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You will be aware, as are all members of the House, of the clear Speaker’s ruling in terms of the ability of a member, on invitation, to translate. You invited the Hon Dover Samuels to do so. He did so. It was in response to your request. I note that since the ACT party chose to cast its vote in Māori the translator has reappeared in the Chamber. I would be very happy if you were to invite him to confirm the vote as translated, at your request, by my colleague Mr Samuels. I must say that the suggestion that any member of this party would place himself or herself in a breach of privilege situation by misleading the Committee is clearly unacceptable and also a waste of the Committee’s time.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I ask you to ask for the Speaker’s ruling that Mr David Benson-Pope is referring to that enables a member of the Government to translate a vote for an Opposition party. I am not aware of that ruling.
David Benson-Pope: The Chairperson has the info.
Rodney Hide: He might have it. What is it?
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The ruling was made on 8 October last year.
Rodney Hide: But doesn’t it require the member’s agreement?
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): In any case, we will progress from there. I thank those members who have contributed, but it was entirely up to me. I did seek for a member to interpret or to assist the Committee, and the Hon Dover Samuels was willing to do that. But I will move on from there. I accept his interpretation, his right to do it, and my right to accept it, but given that members have raised those issues, I am going to ask the ACT party to repeat its vote, and the interpreter will interpret.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 9 be agreed to:
to omit the words “trade unions” wherever they occur in this clause.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 27
New Zealand National 27.
Noes 90
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9;United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 9(1)(a) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Green Party 9.
Noes 108
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 9 be agreed to:
to omit subclause (1)(a)(i).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 27
New Zealand National 27.
Noes 90
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9;United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 9(1)(a)(i) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Green Party 9.
Noes 108
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 9 be agreed to:
to omit subclause (1)(a)(ii).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 27
New Zealand National 27.
Noes 90
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9;United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 9 be agreed to:
to omit subclause (1)(a)(iii).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 35
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 82
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 9(1)(a)(iii) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Green Party 9.
Noes 110
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 9 be agreed to:
to omit subclause (1)(b).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 35
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 84
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 9(1)(b) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Green Party 9.
Noes 110
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 9 be agreed to:
to omit subclause (1)(c)(i).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 35
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 84
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 9 be agreed to:
to omit subclause (1)(c)(ii).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 35
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 84
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 9 be agreed to:
to omit subclause (1)(d)(i).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 35
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 84
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 9 be agreed to:
to omit subclause (1)(d)(ii).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 35
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 84
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 9(1) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Green Party 9.
Noes 110
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 9 be agreed to:
to insert, after subclause (2), the following subclause:
(2A) In performing its functions, NZTE will act in accord with prudent financial management and business practices.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 12 be agreed to:
to add to subclause (2) the following paragraph:
(c) must be tabled in the House of Representatives within 7 days.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 12 be agreed to:
to add the following subclause:
(4) Notwithstanding anything in this section, NZTE may not act against prudent financial management or business practices.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13 be agreed to:
to add the words “and the Commerce Select Committee”.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13 be agreed to:
to add the following subclause:
(2) No ministerial direction can direct the board to act in any way counter to prudent financial management and accepted business practices.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14 be agreed to:
to omit from subclause (1) the expression “9”, and substitute the expression “7”.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to insert new clause 18A be agreed to:
to insert, after clause 18, the following clause:
18A From time to time, other government agencies may be incorporated into the agency established by this Act by way of Order in Council.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 19 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Green Party 9.
Noes 110
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 20 be agreed to:
to add the following subclause:
(2) The board must, as soon as practicable after approving delegations, publish a copy of it in the Gazette.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 21 be agreed to:
to add the following paragraph:
(e) the power to approve the statement of intent and annual report.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 29 be agreed to:
to omit subclause 3.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 31 be agreed to:
to omit subclause 2(d).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 71
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 31 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Green Party 9.
Noes 110
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 54 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Green Party 9.
Noes 110
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 56 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Green Party 9.
Noes 110
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 66 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Green Party 9.
Noes 110
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 110
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13;ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Noes 9
Green Party 9.
Part 2 agreed to.
Part 3 Miscellaneous provisions
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): I want to raise a particular concern with regard to clause 79. I want to tell the Committee about a matter that I do not have absolute confirmation of, but I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, to comment on it. I am sure the Minister of Finance will also want to take an interest in it. It is an issue around no compensation for technical redundancies. That is fair enough, but in this Parliament we are aware that there is a redundancy, and it is not a technical one. An employee has been made redundant, and we understand that his redundancy payout is in the vicinity of $160,000—a golden handshake. The Minister would be well advised to take a call either to confirm that, or to put us straight. Now that it is on the public record, there will no doubt be some interest in the matter of whether a person who has retired—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: That can’t be, because they were going to stop them.
JOHN CARTER: That is the very point. Mr Winston Peters is exactly right. The Labour Government said there would be no more golden handshakes—
Hon Tony Ryall: Read my lips!
JOHN CARTER: Yes, read my lips.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: It was 4 years ago.
JOHN CARTER: Yes, 4 years ago it was stated that there would be no payouts at all. It might be that this rumour is a rumour. If it is, I genuinely ask the Minister to put us right, then we can move on to other parts of the bill. But this rumour started running rife about 2 minutes ago, and it will carry on running until it is corrected.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I bet she won’t. I bet the member any money he wants.
JOHN CARTER: I am not sure I would take that bet.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will!
JOHN CARTER: The member might. If the rumour is incorrect, I ask the Minister to tell us, and we can move on to other parts. The public has a right to know whether it is correct. We are talking about hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars.
Hon Member: How much was it?
JOHN CARTER: It is rumoured to be $160,000 to walk away.
Hon Ken Shirley: Who got that?
JOHN CARTER: It is rumoured that the chief executive of Industry New Zealand got it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Four years ago?
JOHN CARTER: No, not 4 years ago, when the Government promised there would be none; not even 3 years ago—
Hon Ken Shirley: Three months ago?
JOHN CARTER: I am told that it was within the last month or two. It is not a redundancy; it is a golden handshake. I want the Minister to correct me if I am wrong. If I am wrong, I will accept that, and we can then move on. However, if I am not wrong, then the Minister needs to stand up to explain why the Government has gone back on its commitment to no more golden handshakes.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Can the member explain to me how what he has said is relevant to the wording of this clause.
JOHN CARTER: I am talking about technical redundancies.
Hon Tony Ryall: The dissolution of former agencies.
JOHN CARTER: Yes, absolutely. This is the whole matter of dissolution. It is all about continuity of employment, final reports and accounts.
Clayton Cosgrove: Help him out, Tony!
JOHN CARTER: That is why we have colleagues on this side of the House who are not too proud to help each other out; nor are we too proud to accept the advice of our colleagues. I am very grateful to the Hon Tony Ryall for pointing out the heading “Dissolution of former agencies”.
What I and the other members on this side of Chamber are worried about—and I know that New Zealand First and ACT members join with me—is whether this money is being properly spent.
Hon Tony Ryall: Or is he going to get a job in the Prime Minister’s office?
JOHN CARTER: Well, there we go! Is that possible? Perhaps the Minister could answer that. Maybe there will be an offer of a part-time job in the Prime Minister’s office, as well. [Interruption] Well, it has happened before. In fact, I can think of two or three occasions. So I say that we need to know that fact; otherwise, it could impinge on the whole of this bill and put a taint on this legislation. I say to the Minister in charge of this bill—not the Minister in the chair, Lianne Dalziel, but the Minister in charge of the bill, Mr Anderton: “Here we go again!” He is an absolute farce of a Minister, and he should not be here. He is spending $160,000 out of his $211 million. Judging by the way he gives money away, it is a wonder that he did not give the whole lot away. He has given out $160,000 with no accountability, and that situation needs to be fixed.
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty): I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate on Part 3, “Miscellaneous provisions”, which is headed “Dissolution of former agencies”. As a result of the passing of this legislation, there will no longer be an organisation called Industry New Zealand. What this part provides for is that those employees from Industry New Zealand who are becoming amalgamated with Trade New Zealand do not qualify for redundancy. But there is one exception, and it is our responsibility as members of Parliament and guardians of the taxpayers’ purse to ask this question of the Government: how much does Neil McKay get as a payout for termination of his contract? How much, I ask the Minister, Lianne Dalziel, will the chief executive get because this Government has curtailed his contract? There is a two-word term for what happens when one gives a chief executive a cheque and a wave. It is called a golden handshake, and this Minister—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Is the member describing a technical redundancy?
Hon TONY RYALL: What I am doing is asking why this clause does not cover the chief executive of Industry New Zealand. That means that he will have to be paid out of his contract. How much has the Government agreed to give him in a golden handshake for the closure of Industry New Zealand? That is the Minister who stood on platforms 4 years ago and said she would be part of a team that would stop those golden handshakes, and she has not.
Clause 76, “Transfer of employees”, clause 77, “Terms and conditions of employment for transferred employee”, and clause 78, “Continuity of employment”, do not appear to address the issue of the chief executive. Where is the money? How much is the money? We want to know. If this Government were honouring its commitment to no golden handshakes, surely clause 79, “No compensation for technical redundancy”, and clause 76, would cover the chief executive, but they do not. The reason we want to know is that there may be proceedings against Industry New Zealand. Is Mr McKay taking any legal action against Industry New Zealand? If he is, I draw members’ attention to clause 82, “Proceedings of former agency”. The new agency set up by this bill will inherit any Employment Court action taken by any officer of Industry New Zealand. Will the Minister take a call—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, she won’t.
Hon TONY RYALL: Mr Peters says she will not take a call. Will Margaret Wilson take a call? Will any of the Ministers, who promised that there would be no more golden handshakes, get up tell us how much cash the chief executive of Industry New Zealand is getting as he walks away as a result of this bill? Are there any Employment Court proceedings pending, or expected, or under way, that will be caught by clause 82 of this bill? This Parliament and the public have a right to know, because this Government set the benchmark. It said there would be no more golden handshakes.
We also want to know whether a job is being offered in the Prime Minister’s office, or any other Minister’s office, to give that former chief executive some sort of de facto golden handshake. When we look at the provision for proceedings in clause 82, and the fact that no employee of Industry New Zealand or Trade New Zealand can claim technical redundancy, and the fact that every employee has a right of transfer—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. During the last two speeches, but particularly during the speech being made by Mr Ryall, you have been at pains to point out by sign language that he should come within greater constraints in the debate. I understand that to mean that you think that maybe he has dealt at sufficient length with the issue he has raised. My real point is that there is a requirement for a Minister to be in the chair. In this case, the Minister has had her head around the Speaker’s podium for most of the time that Mr Ryall has been on his feet.
The second thing is that if a Minister refuses to address the questions being asked by members of Parliament—questions that go to the core of one significant part of this bill—then maybe you should allow a wider and longer extension of the debate.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that. It is entirely up to the member, or the Minister, as to whether they wish to take a call.
Hon TONY RYALL: I am much obliged to the member for Tauranga for his intervention. I think it is worth pointing out that this clause is all about the transfer of staff to the new organisation. It is perfectly legitimate for Parliament to ask how much the chief executive is getting as his payout, because he is not being transferred. How much cash has this Government given him?
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I would like to pursue the issue that has been under debate, and for which we have not had answers. As I address Part 3, I refer the Committee, in particular, to clause 79, “No compensation for technical redundancy”. That clause states: “A transferred employee is not entitled to receive any payment or any other benefit solely on the ground that—(a) the position held by the person in a former agency”—that is, in either Trade New Zealand or Industry New Zealand—“has ceased to exist; or (b) the person has ceased (as a result of the transfer to NZTE) to be an employee of a former agency.” What is widely understood is that one of the key reasons that the Government is doing this great merger is that it was totally exasperated by Neil McKay’s running of Industry New Zealand.
ACT opposed the establishment of Industry New Zealand. Its role is not the role of Governments. It is philosophically wrong. It was the dreamchild of Jim Anderton.
Hon Maurice Williamson: Who?
Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Jim Anderton. He rushed around the country with a chequebook, saying: “I’m from the Government. Boy, have I got a deal for you!”
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What party?
Hon KEN SHIRLEY: The “JAPCO” party—the “Jim Anderton Progressive Coalition”. That is the name of the party, as I understand it. He rushed around the country promising all sorts of benevolence from the Government to industry, and all we got were things like Sovereign Yachts.
My point is this: Mr McKay, as I understood it, actually left in March. This bill has been on the Order Paper for some time, so the Government did a little deal with Mr McKay. To get round it, it had to restructure and take his job out of existence. That is what it did way back when, and what we have before the Committee tonight is just the aftermath of that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?
Hon KEN SHIRLEY: That is the very question we should all be asking: how much was that golden handshake? The figure of $160,000 has been mentioned. I think the New Zealand public has a right to know. This Government campaigned on the principle that there would be no more golden handshakes.
It went up and down the country saying: “No more golden handshakes.” That lot is very sneaky. I doubt whether the Minister in the chair would know, but I would like to ask her why the Warehouse got $100,000.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: They’re broke.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY: The battlers of New Zealand—those poor taxpayers—had to pay extra tax so that Jim Anderton and Industry New Zealand could roll up to the Warehouse and say: “Would you like a cheque for $100,000?”. We know that “everyone gets a bargain”, but it did not believe the bargain it was getting.
John Carter: Except the taxpayers.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY: The member is right; the taxpayer missed out.
Who else got the big fat cheque? EDS (New Zealand) Ltd did—a multinational corporate, probably as big as the New Zealand economy. Jim Anderton and Industry New Zealand flew all around the country, pulled out the chequebook and wrote a cheque for $1.5 million of taxpayers’ money. The battlers of New Zealand—small businesses being overtaxed—pay tax—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It would be helpful if the member could explain how what he is saying is relevant to Part 3.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Indeed, I am still on clause 79. I would like to have an opportunity later in this debate to address clause 82. However, clause 79 goes to the root of this issue. The bill deals with all the rest of the staff, and the key issue is what happened to Neil McKay. He is not covered by clause 79. He went prior to this legislation being passed. What was the little deal made in secret on the eighth or ninth floor of the Beehive? What did they sign up to? Was it $160,000? That is what is being rumoured around town, and I have heard it in the debating chamber tonight. It is alleged that Neil McKay was paid $160,000, essentially to go quietly. Under clause 79 of this bill, he would not have been entitled to that, because his position had been totally restructured, but it is alleged that prior to that the Government wanted a tidy wee number. It said that there would not be a job for him because it was putting the two organisations together, asked him to go, and paid $160,000 to buy him off.
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia): I want to focus my contribution on clauses 76 and 77. It takes skill and experience to merge organisations. It is not something where one wakes up and thinks that today one is going to merge an organisation. What one needs to do is call on people with expertise and experience. If one is to determine which staff members will be transferred to the new entity, one will need to know on what basis one will be doing that. It occurs to me that if two small bureaucracies were thrown together we would get one big bureaucracy. When one is merging organisations, one needs to take the best parts of those organisations—the ones that have synergies—and merge those together.
I hear a couple of members yelling from the other side of the Chamber. I know that the tough part is when one says that some members of those organisations will not transfer to the new one, because they are just not needed. It is tough, because those people have families. But if one believes that what one is doing is the right thing, then that is the action one needs to take.
What should follow before people are transferred across is that one should look at what economies of scale will flow from the merged organisations. There should be less management, fewer staff, fewer compliance costs, and a better focus on core business. Before that determination is made, one needs to do some sort of cost-benefit analysis. I know that when members of the select committee sought answers about whether a cost-benefit analysis had been done they could not get cogent answers, so they asked the Minister whether he had done a cost-benefit analysis. He said something vague along the lines that that work is still being done, which implies that he had not done a cost-benefit analysis before he started to merge the two organisations.
How does one merge multimillion-dollar organisations and know that one is doing the best by the New Zealand public, if one has not done that type of basic work? In fact, the Minister said that the work was being done, and economies of scale would follow. My question is: how does he know? One actually has to have the experience in order to do that. Many of those employees are well paid. Surely, one has to be clear before one determines the terms and conditions as set out in clause 77 that employees must have a very clear understanding of what it is they will be doing. I picked up an article by a spokeswoman from Industry New Zealand that stated that Industry New Zealand was a type of dating agency that would put businesses together so that it could help them work their way through the bureaucracy of government.
Hon Tony Ryall: Jim Anderton is a sort of earlier Charlotte Dawson or something, isn’t he?
BRIAN CONNELL: Charlotte Dawson - Jim Anderton? Beggar the thought! She should be saying that Industry New Zealand will advise businesses how not to get engaged in bureaucracy, because its job is really to help business diminish bureaucracy, rather than engage in it. Someone needs to tell that spokeswoman that her job is to help business, not just build up compliance costs. The Manufacturers Federation does not want this. It was not consulted. When employer bodies were asked whether they had been consulted by Mr Anderton they said no, they did not know what was needed and they did not know what types of employees they needed. They would have expected that that sort of work would have been done first.
PANSY WONG (NZ National): Our suspicion has been confirmed in Part 3. When I was debating the title in Part 1, we were speculating as to why the Labour Government wanted to do away with Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand in this bill—even though the National Party supports that. We believe in cutting down bureaucracy, so we support that. However, I think that Industry New Zealand was causing a lot of embarrassment for the Minister, the Hon Jim Anderton. So this is a big ploy. Instead of cutting down bureaucracy, I believe that the Government restructured the whole department to get rid of a chief executive. When I look at clause 78, “Continuity of Employment”, it looks like everybody else in Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand got employment, apart from one, Neil McKay. He did not get continuity of employment.
If we look at last year’s financial report of Industry New Zealand, we see that the top-paid employee in Industry New Zealand was getting $200,000 to $210,000 a year. That was Neil McKay. For Mr McKay to accept that he no longer had continuity of employment under clause 78, one would have to speculate how much—and I ask Maurice Williamson, how much he thinks he would have been paid out.
Hon Maurice Williamson: $120,000.
PANSY WONG: The Hon Maurice Williamson is getting modest. I reckon that an employee who was earning $200,000 a year—
John Carter: How much do you reckon?
PANSY WONG: I reckon he would probably get 2 years’ severance pay. We are talking about in the vicinity of $400,000. We want the Minister to take a call to put our minds at ease that this amount has not been paid out. How much did Mr McKay get for agreeing not to compete for the chief executive position in this new enterprise called New Zealand Trade and Enterprise? It is very unsatisfactory for the Minister Lianne Dalziel to sit there and not answer a very serious question that has been raised by members on this side of the Chamber. We want to know whether a massive restructuring exercise was carried out because the chief executive Mr McKay, previously of Industry New Zealand, had been giving away those grants that were embarrassing to the Hon Jim Anderton—to Sovereign Yachts, the Warehouse, etc.
Opposition Member: EDS.
PANSY WONG: EDS, an international company, $1.5 million! Guess how many heart operations that could have funded! It could have helped people on the waiting lists, and helped the poor woman from Nelson who could not get cancer treatment. We want to know how much a former employee Mr McKay, who under clause 78 of this bill could not enjoy continuity of employment, was paid out. We speculate that it was 2 years’ annual salary, which is around $400,000, and I think the Minister should take a call to confirm or deny that statement.
Part 3 raises more questions. They said that nobody was going to suffer, and there would be no compensation for technical redundancies, yet we did not get any comfort, because nobody would tell us what happened to the chief executive of Industry New Zealand.
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa): I move, That the question be now put.
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): I appreciate the opportunity to take a further call. I thank you for this call because I am getting more and more concerned about this issue. I am getting concerned because the Minister Lianne Dalziel sits in the chair. She has been discussing this matter with her officials for the last 30 to 35 minutes, taking advice from the officials as to whether Neil McKay got a golden handshake, and she will not take a call. Indeed, what is really concerning me and will be concerning the listeners and the taxpayers of this country, is that now she is sitting in the chair, laughing and joking as though it does not matter, as though it is not an issue of spending taxpayers’ money.
I say to the Minister in the chair that this is a serious issue. People in this country should not be able to walk away with a whole bundle of taxpayers’ money, just because the Government decides that they are not worth keeping in the job and the Government wants to get rid of them so it has to change the structure of the organisation and damn well pay them out. I say that that is not good enough. Indeed, let me bring this to the Committee’s attention. The information brought to the Committee’s attention by my colleague Pansy Wong said: “We understand”—and we want confirmation of this—“that the chief executive was on a salary of $200,000 to $210,000.”
John Key: What?
JOHN CARTER: Hang on a minute. The latest information that has come to hand, and we want the Minister in the chair to confirm this, or indeed Jim Anderton to come to the Chamber and confirm it, is that the salary the chief executive was on was not $200,000 or $210,000. It was somewhere between $230,000 and $240,000.
Hon Tony Ryall: A quarter of a million.
JOHN CARTER: Yes, a quarter of a million bucks! There are 2 years to run on the contract, so what happens? “Oh, no problem,” says Jim Anderton, “I’ll write you out a cheque for half a million dollars. See you later.” [Interruption] No, more than the Warehouse, and a third of what the Government gave to EDS! There are two things that really worry me. Firstly, the jolly Minister will not take a call and confirm or deny this. I want the Minister to stand up and deny it. I want to be able to tell the taxpayers of Northland: “Yep, the Minister did it right; he came down to the Chamber and said: ‘No, don’t worry about it, John. You can go back up north and tell the folks up there that it’s not an issue.’ ” But not this useless Minister! He is a disgrace. The second thing that worries me is, why is the Government bringing this bill into the House when this dude left the place 3 or 4 months ago? Why is there not something in the bill about him? [Interruption]
My colleague the Hon Tony Ryall raises a third matter. This is getting worse. It is like Sherlock Holmes. We are having to drag the thing out. We walk around the corner and there is another clue. I think if I looked over I would find something else that I want to raise. What was it that the Hon Tony Ryall raised?
Hon Tony Ryall: A personal grievance.
JOHN CARTER: Can the Minister take a call and answer this question? Has Mr McKay lodged a personal grievance? Have we written him out a cheque for $500,000 and he said that it is not enough, but rushed away to the bank and banked the cheque? The Government then decided to bring in this bill and it does not cover that, so he whacks in a personal grievance as well. How much will that cost taxpayers?
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I ask the member to come back to Part 3.
JOHN CARTER: It is right in here—“Dissolution of former agencies”. There is a whole package—clause 82—it is very relevant. It should be covered under this bill. The Minister should be taking calls. The Government should be explaining it. It said there would be no golden handshakes. I can remember members on that side standing on platforms 4 years ago, during the election campaign, and saying: “Not us. We won’t let it happen under our regime.” Now, when those members are questioned, they are mute—absolutely silent. Surely one would think the Minister would want to take a call and say: “John Carter, you’ve got it wrong. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Nothing’s happened. You can go back to your people in Northland and say, ‘Don’t worry, we’ve got it under control.’ ” There has not been a sausage. I ask the Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs, whether she has an answer to that question. Not on your nelly!
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I would like to address clause 82. I do so on the basis that it refers to the proceedings of former agencies. A number of Opposition members have already asked this question of the Minister in the chair: whether any known outstanding legal actions have been taken against either of those two constituent bodies that are being melded into this new trade and enterprise State agency, and in particular whether Neil McKay has lodged any legal action, as he is entitled to and provision is made for in clause 82.
Now we have Minister No. 16 in the chair. We never had any response from previous Ministers, but I would ask whether Minister No. 16, the Hon Marian Hobbs, could perhaps address that issue, because it is important, particularly in the context that it is alleged and rumoured around town that a substantial golden handshake was given to Mr Neil McKay for his job disappearing as part of the restructuring. His contract had some 2 years to run. Initially, Opposition members were given to understand that his salary was what we thought was the astronomical figure of $210,000 per year. We have now learnt that his salary bracket was actually in the $230,000 to $240,000 range. On that basis, with 2 years to run on that contract, it is alleged that his golden handshake may well have been in the order of half a million dollars.
These rumours are circulating around the country in business circles. We believe that the Minister has a responsibility to Parliament to come clean and, with the passage of this legislation, to answer two questions. I would ask that the Minister follow the questions. The first question is whether a golden handshake payment was made. The Minister may have different language and may not want to refer to it as a golden handshake, but the question is whether there was a settlement for Neil McKay with the restructuring away of his job. In other words, did the taxpayer not only have to fork out $240,000 a year for him, but when the Government decided he was not doing a very good job and wanted to do away with him, is it possible that there was another payment? That is question No. 1.
My second question is whether any legal action is being taken in terms of the provisions of clause 82 by any former employee of either of those organisations—that is, Trade New Zealand and Industry New Zealand—and, in particular, whether there is any veracity whatsoever in the rumour that is circulating, that Mr Neil McKay is also taking action. The public of New Zealand need to be satisfied about those issues. It is our responsibility as Opposition members to pursue them, and it is the Minister’s responsibility as Minister in the chair to answer them. She must answer them, because comment is already being made about the appalling track record of Industry New Zealand.
In a very short time it ran up extraordinary bills, walking around with the taxpayers’ chequebook, writing out a cheque for $1.5 million for EDS and another for a $100,000 grant to the Warehouse. This is corporate welfare in anyone’s language, and struggling New Zealanders will not be pleased to learn that their hard-earned taxes are being lavishly spent by the Crown in that manner. But more particularly, I know that the taxpayers of New Zealand would be outraged if they learnt that a public servant who was on a salary of $240,000 was not doing a good job, and the Government was totally dissatisfied with him—so dissatisfied that it used this bill to restructure that body out of existence and then, as part of his contract, paid him off with half a million dollars.
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 69
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Noes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 100
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8.
Noes 17
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.
Part 3 agreed to.
Schedules
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty): The National Party in Opposition is rising to draw the Committee’s attention to the amendments in the name of my colleague the MP for Clevedon, Judith Collins. The amendments seek to streamline part of the schedules. One of the criticisms we have of the schedules, and indeed of the bill, is how overly prescriptive those clauses are. Not only does the bill set out how various subsidiaries will act but it also lists what one would have thought would be inherent in the appointment of anybody as a member of the board of the new authority. There is a requirement that each member must act in accordance with the Act; that members must act with honesty and integrity; that there is a duty of reasonable care, diligence, and skill; and that there is a duty of confidence. These are the very basics for anyone serving on any authority in this country, and it seems ridiculous that they have to be spelt out in a schedule to a piece of legislation. I find that quite, quite ridiculous.
National members have moved amendments to make it clear that we do expect the board to act in a commercially prudent way, because although this schedule talks about the board operating in a responsible financial manner, it does not actually give a very clear point of direction as to the way the authority should operate. We believe it is quite ridiculous to have such detailed requirements within a schedule of the Act, and we think it shows a real lack of confidence in those people who will be appointed as members of the authority. We can understand, however, that this is a Government that has had an unhappy relationship with Industry New Zealand, because Industry New Zealand and its Minister dobbed it in with Sovereign Yachts, dobbed it in with New Zealand Yachts, and dobbed it in with a huge cheque to one of the richest companies in the country—the Warehouse. I can understand that the Government would be worried about that.
John Key: Maybe they are working on becoming a little less controversial.
Hon TONY RYALL: As my colleague says, maybe they are working on becoming a little less controversial.
When we look at the detail in those clauses, we see that it is quite ridiculous. For example, the third schedule talks about the procedures of the board, and goes to the extent of declaring that notices of meeting must be in writing, must be given by postal delivery or electronic communication, and must be sent to the members’ or special advisers’ last known addresses in New Zealand. That is the minutiae of administrative detail, and any halfway competent organisation deals with it without its being spelt out in legislation. The problem with spelling those things out in legislation is that when there is an omission by accident, a whole lot of stuff—stuff that might have flowed otherwise—is invalidated. It is quite ridiculous. What will happen to the resolutions and the actions of this new authority if a notice of meeting is not written and a meeting has to be called urgently? There are many situations when meetings of directors have to be called urgently, without unnecessary written notice. What happens to the board’s decision-making process if there is an emergency meeting of the board of the new authority and the meeting notice has not been circulated? This is the sort of thing that happens, but the Government is trying to over-prescribe how an entity should operate.
Members should look at schedule 3. Who presides at meetings will be set out in legislation. The Government is setting out in legislation how one votes on the new board that will run New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. Issues like disclosure of interest—the various methods for directors not disclosing things—are being talked about. Those are the very basics that one would expect from any halfway decent group of people running an organisation, and it is a lack of confidence that sees this Government promoting those sorts of overly prescriptive schedules. So I commend to the Committee the amendments in the name of my colleague Judith Collins.
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): I have been having a quick read through the schedules while I was listening to my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall, and I have to say that the more I read them the more I started to disbelieve what I was reading. Can members believe that that sort of wording is put into legislation? Members should have a look at clause 6 of schedule 1, “Duty to act with honesty and integrity”, which states: “A member must, when acting as a member, act with honesty and integrity.” Goodness gracious me! Why would anybody be appointed if it were thought that they would act otherwise?
Hon Tony Ryall: And what is the penalty if they don’t?
JOHN CARTER: Well, hang on; we will come to that in a minute. The first thing I want to do is ask this question: is this Government saying that there are other places where they appoint people who do not act with honesty and integrity?
Hon Tony Ryall: Te Māngai Pāho.
JOHN CARTER: OK, I did not want to refer to Te Māngai Pāho. However, I say it is incredible that the Government would have to set all that out in legislation. For goodness’ sake! What sort of people do they expect they will be appointing to this jolly board if they think they have to spell all that out for them?
Hon Ken Shirley: Failed Labour candidates.
JOHN CARTER: That is the worry, really, is it not? The member Ken Shirley is absolutely right. He interjects and says: “Failed Labour candidates”. That is probably why this sort of thing has to be written. I cannot believe this. It is just incredible that the Government has to write down the fact that someone has to act, on behalf of the taxpayers of this country, with honesty and integrity. I would have thought that any Government that selects anybody to be on a board would just assume they would act in that way. Why would one spell it out? The next thing is that if we go to clause 7, we see that it is headed: “Duty to act in good faith and not at expense of entity’s interests”. Why would one appoint anybody who was not going to act in the interests of the entity to which they had been appointed? Can members believe that? I have to say that it would make one’s hair stand on end. It is quite amazing. I mean, look at what it is doing to mine! It is quite incredible, and I cannot believe it. I move on, and ask what the penalties are. I have read the penalties somewhere—no; there are not any penalties.
Hon Tony Ryall: The penalty is you have to have dinner with the Prime Minister.
JOHN CARTER: It would not surprise me if that were written in this schedule, but I cannot find it. Let me bring members to clause 10(2). I ask them to listen to this: “If a board does not comply with any of its collective duties, all or any of the members may be removed from office.” One might ask: “OK, what is wrong with that?” Nothing—but why does it not apply to Cabinet? If the Government is going to write this sort of thing into the provisions of a board—that it is representing the taxpayers of New Zealand—I would have thought that it should apply to the members of the “board of New Zealand”, the Cabinet. I say that if it is good enough to have it in this bill, then it is should apply consistently. If we are going to ask members of this board to comply—and they can be removed if they do not comply—with all the collective duties, then the provision should apply consistently. I say that this Parliament spends a lot of time dealing with people who do not deal collectively and act as a collective. If this sort of law is to be written, then it has to apply consistently. With regard to these schedules, I say that if this is the sort of law we are starting to write, then we have to wonder what sort of country we are becoming. It really worries me. Earlier on, we talked about other measures associated with the bill. We talked about payouts for people—golden handshakes—when promises had been made that there would not be any. We then see that the Government has to write in the fact that people have to be honest and act with integrity. It also has to write in the fact that people have to act in good faith and not at the expense of the entity’s interest.
Hon Paul Swain: What research was done on this speech?
JOHN CARTER: Goodness gracious me! How can Minister Swain possibly be in a Cabinet that writes this sort of legislation? Is it for some of the people he plays rugby with, or something? If that is the sort of team that those members are going to put up, it makes me wonder what we have to be worried about.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): In speaking to the schedules, I take up the point just made by Mr Carter, who has just resumed his seat. I think that what we have in this legislation really is a clear weathervane of the culture of that organisation. It will be a State-controlled agency, with ministerial control to do the bidding of Government. That is where the basic philosophical problem is with the legislation. We have seen reference to that in clauses that have already been referred to. But I would like to refer members to clause 11 of schedule 1: “Accountability for individual duties”. I totally take on board the comments that have already been made. It is quite inappropriate to spell out all those basic performance standards, which anyone who is a director of a company, or who is on a board, knows are part of their fundamental duties. One does not spell them out unless one is, indeed, engaging imbeciles to undertake that role. The suggestion was made that the boards will be stacked with failed Labour candidates, and perhaps on that point I would concede that they might need to have everything spelt out for them, but, even then, it would not be spelt out in big and bold enough language for them. Be that as it may, what really disturbs me—
David Benson-Pope: Where’s Donna?
Hon KEN SHIRLEY: The member from Dunedin, Mr Benson-Pope, is chirping. I ask him what his point is. Does the member have a point to make? No, it appears not. He is just chirping away. I turn to clause 11: “Accountability for individual duties”. Clause 11(1) states: “The duties of members under clauses 5 to 9 … are duties owed to the Minister …”. Members should think about that. What that says is that one owes the duties to the Minister. Clause 11(2) states: “If a member does not comply with his or her individual duties”—that is, the duty to the Minister—“that member may be removed from office.”
Let us just think where else we have seen that. Members of the Committee will remember that when the Government set up the district health boards, it invoked gagging clauses. There are scores of men and women up and down this country on the district health boards who are absolutely fed up to here with the goings on—and they have a gagging clause. That is what we have in clause 11 of schedule 1. In other words, a person cannot speak out against the Minister’s wishes, because he or she will be kicked off the board. That is an exact parallel to the provisions in the district health boards legislation. Once again, this Government, in establishing this new Crown agency, is putting in the condition that a member owes his or her duties to the Minister and if a member does not comply with that, then he or she will be removed from office. That is used as a gagging clause. It has been used as such in the district health boards legislation, and I put to the Committee that that is what this clause is intended to do.
I will go through those collective duties of members, which is schedule 1, keeping in mind that clause 5 of the bill states that a member means a member of the board; that is, of the board of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. The way we are spelling out the basic functions of any responsible board member is puerile. It does not need to be spelt out in special legislation—it is covered by existing legislation, up and down and all over the place. We have legislation to cover the responsibility for directors of any such agency, and to spell it out in this manner is rather foolish. Could the Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs, please take a call? We have been asking her to take a call and respond to our questions. We have not had a peep out of Bo Peep, and it would be nice—
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is out of order. Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement) states that one must refer to a member by full title, name, or portfolio.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY: We have not had a peep out of Minister No. 16, the Hon Marian Hobbs, and we would like to have a response. That is why we have Ministers in the chair during the Committee stage. They are there to actually respond and enter into the debate, and if this Government cannot put in the chair a Minister who can actually take a call, it is a pretty poor show.
PANSY WONG (NZ National): I am really wondering who is responsible for writing these schedules. Let me share this with the public: we are getting very worried about the types of thoughts that are going into the schedules. Just now my colleague Mr John Carter raised the question of clause 10, “Accountability for collective board duties”, in schedule 1. He raised a valid point. Clause 10(2) states: “If a board does not comply with any of its collective duties, all or any of the members may be removed from office.” But the next subclause, subclause (3), states that a member may not have to be removed if: “(a) he or she did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the duty was to be or was being breached;”.
That all sounds very generous, except for the provisions relating to the members of the board in clause 8, “Duty to act with reasonable care, diligence, and skill”, in the same schedule. The public was led to believe that some of the brightest members of the public with commercial skills and qualifications, etc., will be appointed to the board. Apparently, they can be excused if they breach one of the duties of collective responsibility, implying that some of the board members may not actually know what the requirements and duties may be. The Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs, should take a call to explain to us what sorts of members the Labour Party will appoint, apart from failed Labour candidates. Any competent professionals appointed to the board should be expected to know what lies within the collective responsibility.
I get really confused and concerned to see in clause 12, “Court actions requiring or restraining board or members”, of schedule 1 how prescriptive the Labour Government has become. Subclause (1) states: “The Minister or a member may apply to a court for an order—”, but the thing that really concerns me is that the Government is starting to dictate to the court what it can do. Subclause (2) states: “The court may make an order on the application, subject to the following rules: (a) an order may be made only if the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so;”. The Minister in the chair should take a call. When has a judge of a court made an order when it is not just and equitable to do so? I get very concerned that the Government is writing into the schedules of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill that a judge may not make an order unless the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable. It is quite tarnishing to the reputation of our judges and courts that, in effect, this Labour Government finds it necessary to dictate to them that they should not make any order on application unless that is equitable and just. That is a very serious issue.
The Minister really needs to take a call and explain to us whether a judge or a court has earned her distrust, or what the special reasons are that exist that this Government finds it necessary to dictate to the judge or the court that they not make any order unless it is just and equitable. In New Zealand, the public—and myself—are led to have belief and confidence that our judges and courts always act in a manner that is just and equitable. It is very strange that the schedules of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill should have to spell that out in detail. It seems that the culture and language that is flowing through this whole schedule is spelling out, chapter and verse, how members of the board should behave, how they should share. It leads one to wonder what happened to confidence.
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki): I move, That the question be now put.
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia): Thank you for the opportunity to make another contribution to this debate. I want to focus the Committee’s attention on schedule 1. In particular, I want to look at clause 2, “Functions must be performed efficiently, effectively, and consistently with spirit of service to public”. I was wondering whether the Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs, could take a call and enlighten me as to what that means, because I have no idea what “spirit of service to public” actually means. How will one measure it?
Pansy Wong: Giving money to the Warehouse.
BRIAN CONNELL: That might be the measure? What does success look like? The Minister could take a call and tell me that. More important, who determines it? Who determines whether someone is acting in the spirit of service to the public, and how is it evaluated? Who writes this stuff? It is overly prescriptive.
Let us look at clause 3 of schedule 1, “Operation must be in financially responsible manner”, which states: “The board must ensure that NZTE operates in a financially responsible manner and, for this purpose, that it prudently manages its assets and liabilities.” I say to members of this Committee, and to the Minister, that we have not really made a good start. I want to know what other contingent liabilities are on the books. What other Mr McKays are hiding in the balance sheet? Already we have paid out half a million dollars to Mr McKay.
Edwin Perry: How much?
BRIAN CONNELL: Half a million dollars.
Hon Tony Ryall: Or somewhat less than that.
BRIAN CONNELL: Somewhat less than that, was it? I will take bids. How will the others be disclosed? Maybe the Minister could take a call and explain that, as well.
When one reads the schedules, it is clear that they are overly prescriptive. Members of the Committee might have heard the expression, there is no point in having a dog and barking, too, which is why I support my colleague Judith Collins’ amendments, which have now been put by my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall. Surely we could have something that simply said: “Members of the board should act commercially, in accordance with their judicial responsibilities.” That would streamline the process, and, in my view, it would make this type of legislation efficient and enforceable.
I will now look at clause 6, “Duty to act with honesty and integrity”, and clause 7, “Duty to act in good faith and not at expense of entity’s interests”. Who else would one employ? Would one employ people who were not going to do that? Why would one have to write that type of garbage into legislation? Why not simply employ people who will act within their judicial responsibilities? Again, I ask how is that to be enforced? If they do not act with honesty and integrity, would one employ them in the first place? How do other companies deal with people who do not act with honesty and integrity? It is certainly not enshrined in law.
The other clause in schedule 1 that I will look at is clause 10, “Accountability for collective board duties”, and, in particular, subclause (2), which reads: “If a board does not comply with any of its collective duties, all or any of the members may be removed from office.” What a sham. Is this entity going to be managed at the Minister’s whim? When one thinks about it, it is hardly independent. Members are too scared to say to the Minister: “We think you’ve got it wrong; you’re giving us poor direction.”, because if they do collectively say that, they will be out of a job. How are we going to attract board members to Crown entities who have integrity, the courage of their convictions, and the experience the boards desperately need? They would simply say to the Minister: “Take a hike!”.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 69
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Noes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Motion agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to schedule 1 be agreed to:
to add to clause 1 the following new paragraph:
(c) that is consistent with prudent financial management and commercial practices.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 69
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to schedule 1 be agreed to:
to add to clause 1 the following new paragraph:
(d) that does not contravene this Act or the Companies Act.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 69
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to schedule 1 be agreed to:
to add to clause 2, after the word “public”, the words “consistent with clause 1 of this schedule”.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 69
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Amendment not agreed to, and schedules agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First): You may recall that I am seeking leave to alter the vote of New Zealand First on the last vote in the House. I ask for the number in the vote to be increased from 12 to 13. I apologise for the oversight.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. Leave is granted. The Ayes are now 71 and the Noes are 47.
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not want to deny the member leave as I thought that would be inappropriate. However, it is my observation that New Zealand First has had to change its voting three times in the last hour. Although the Standing Orders do not preclude that, I would have thought it was a rather peculiar practice. At one stage, we had a member calling the vote, then the New Zealand First whip coming in and contradicting it. Here we have had the numbers changed, and I think it reflects badly on that party. We need some comment from the Chair as to what the expectation is in calling the vote.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. I thank the member for his contribution; I am sure it has been noted.
Bills
Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6)
Consideration of Report of Law and Order Committee
Debate resumed from 12 June.
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): During the last debate on this bill we heard an amazing contribution from the Green Party member, Keith Locke. I have to say it is a good thing that under an MMP Parliament all views are represented. We heard the view of the hard-left in New Zealand from Mr Keith Locke. We heard the views of the MPs that this Government relies on for its vote, because Mr Keith Locke stood up in this House and delivered an embarrassing diatribe against the United States of America. His problem with the United States of America was that the State might be snooping on people in the interests of capturing, monitoring, and exposing those who would make war against us, those who would commit violence against us, and those whom we have come to know as “terrorists”. I do not understand how that view can sit with a man like Mr Keith Locke. I could understand it if one were a hard-core libertarian or an anarchist, but not if one were a person who supported the Soviet regime in the USSR, who supported KGB operations, and who said in 1975: “Victory for humanity: Phnom Penh falls”. We all know what happened then. Pol Pot came along, and 1 million people lost their lives in the terror regime of the State on the people of Cambodia.
Mr Locke is a man who has written articles telling workers of Aotearoa to support the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the terror regime that the USSR inflicted not only on its own people but on the satellite States of what Ronald Reagan called the “evil empire”. What sort of warped thinking is it of the Green Party, and of Mr Keith Locke, that complains about the intelligence network of the United States of America—where people have civil rights, individual rights, a free press, a Congress, and what we understand as a parliamentary democracy? That man, in the very next breath, supports terrorist States without check, and police States without check—where the University of the USSR is a gulag, and where political dissent is not voted on in Parliament or allowed to stand on the steps of a Parliament to be heard, but, rather, is shipped off to the salt mines of Siberia. That is the sort of regime that Keith Locke has spent his entire adult life supporting. It shows through time and time with the Greens, because they are people who do not want to protect the environment but to control people. They want to dictate to people; they want to tell people how to live their lives. It was the same airy-fairy, Moonie-type approach that saw the rise of the totalitarian dictatorships that, thankfully, the world is beginning to rid itself of.
I say to Mr Keith Locke and the Greens that if they are going to sit in this Parliament, then, sure, they should have the debates, but they should ask themselves about all the peoples of the world who do not have a vote, who do not have free speech, and who suffer from arbitrary arrest and detention because of their political views? Is it not about time that Mr Keith Locke came to this Parliament and asked whether it is not a wonderful thing to have a democracy, to have a Parliament, to have free speech, to have individual rights, and to be a citizen of a free society—and to say that he apologises to all those people of Cambodia, the USSR, Afghanistan, North Korea, Communist China, and Cuba for his support of regimes that held them down and inflicted terrible fear on them?
Do members know what Mr Keith Locke said to me at the end of his speech? He said, “I’m not a Stalinist; I am a Trotskyist.”—as if that were some excuse to walk into this Parliament and say, “Oh, I never went as far as Josef Stalin did, only as far as Leon Trotsky did.” That just means that the State tells one everything: what one can eat, how one can think, and what one can do. Let us be very clear about one thing—that is what the Green programme is. It is not about protecting the environment; it is about controlling people and removing their freedom, because the Greens know best. They do not want people to be able to drive their cars where they choose. They do not want people to be able to live where they choose. How ironic it is that they worry about the State having the minimal powers needed to protect us from terrorist activity, yet they want to tell us when our cows can let off wind, whether we can chop down a tree that we had planted, and how Māori people are supposed to live. In their ideal world they would be sitting atop a miserable socialist society where we all lived in caves and worked in the sun, with no tractors or machinery—nothing—but just hoeing in the hot sun for a dollar a day, and the only thing we had to look forward to, courtesy of Nandor Tanczos, would be a nice puff of marijuana at the end of a hard day’s work.
That is the only fun the Greens would allow New Zealanders to have. They do not like us driving our cars, they do not like us earning money, and they do not like us zooming around in a jet—unless we are a Green. They do not like us using our cellphones. They do not even like us putting our shopping, at the end of a hard week, in a plastic bag. They want us to get one of those flax-woven shopping bags and carry that—looking like some 1970s retard—walking home with our shopping, and morris dancing after a hard day. To the Greens, plastic is wrong. I say that Keith Locke—
David Benson-Pope: What about the bill? Has the member read the bill?
RODNEY HIDE: David Benson-Pope does not like it, does he? He knows he has to come across to Keith Locke and get his vote. I want to tell members something else about the Labour Party—compared to the Labour Party I like the Greens. At least the Greens tell us what they stand for. David Benson-Pope does not disagree with one thing that Keith Locke says. See! What he does not have is the intestinal fortitude that Keith Locke has to say it. Keith Locke—and that is why I support him—came into this Parliament, and I said “Let’s hear what you have got to say. Let’s hear what the people have to say.” The ACT party supports the bill, because we do not want to be supporting the friends of Keith Locke who are the enemies of freedom.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State): Why is it that Mr Rodney Hide MP spends so long castigating the poor old Greens?
Jeanette Fitzsimons: He’s terrified of them!
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is either that he is terrified of the Greens or he has found the only group that makes him look reasonable, and that is a stretch. On this case we defend the right of the Greens to their view, but Labour Party members hold that the Greens have taken a position with which we cannot agree.
I commend the Law and Order Committee for this bill. The committee report does a delicate balancing act between the rights to freedom and free expression, and the need for greater protection so that everybody’s communications are protected. I note from the conclusion of the committee’s report that the committee has held that that balance has been found.
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty): That was the Hon David Cunliffe, which indeed proves New Zealand is a land of opportunity, and if one grasps enough one may, one day, get what one desires.
Rodney Hide: Has he grasped enough?
Hon TONY RYALL: I suspect so. I draw the House’s attention to how long it has taken for this bill to resurface in the House.
Rodney Hide: al-Qaeda has sought leave and gone.
Hon TONY RYALL: Well, they have. Unfortunately al-Qaeda has not gone, and that is one of the reasons I listened intently to David Cunliffe’s speech; I think he was right. There are people in this House who think it is fashionable to be against anything that stands up for our way of life. But I think it is important that we do focus on that.
This bill was originally referred to the House in October 1999. Submissions closed in March 2000, and the Law and Order Committee reported back to the House months and months later. In fact, the committee heard submissions in 2001, and this bill has only recently come out of the select committee process. I thought that for legislation whose intent was one of urgency, particularly in respect of a number of crimes related to computer equipment, the Government would have given it a greater priority. But I would like to explain to the House why it has taken so long.
The Minister who was entrusted with this bill was the Hon Paul Swain, the then Associate Minister of Justice and Minister of Commerce. I have recited to the House previously, from reports in the media, that the reason the Hon Paul Swain lost his commerce portfolio was his inability to get anything through the parliamentary process. I think we need look no further than the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) to find a bill that, when in Opposition, he said was urgently needed, and in the Parliament said it was urgently needed, yet here we are, over 3 years—in fact, almost 4 years—since the bill was introduced and we are finally coming to the committee report back. We are not even doing the clause by clause debate, let alone the third reading. I suspect that we may have the third reading of this bill next year, because the progress of this bill has been appallingly slow.
In fact, it is so difficult to get the Government to take this anti-hacking computer security legislation seriously. Dr Cullen’s spokesman said that this law was on the radar screen and a priority. Who is he kidding? It has taken 4 years for the bill to get to this stage, and Dr Cullen says it is a priority. Well, goodness knows what it would be like if a bill was not a priority. Furthermore, the Minister of Justice, Mr Goff, refused to put a time frame on the progress of this bill. So the point that the National Party in Opposition wants to make is that there are some very key new offences in relation to controlling computer crimes, which this Government has dragged the chain on.
Subsequently, a Supplementary Order Paper was tabled that provided for extended powers to the authorities to attach interception devices to communications networks. Part of this is dovetailed with the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill, which has come subsequently. At that time the National Party expressed some concerns about provisions that would allow the intelligence agencies to have a permanent listening device attached to communications networks. It was always our view that interceptions should continue to be warrant based, that that warrant should be discrete, and it would then require action by the telecommunications company.
There was considerable concern at the time the Supplementary Order Paper came in that what was being proposed was a permanent attachment to the telephone exchanges, with a continuous feed to the intelligence agencies, and only when the intelligence agencies had a warrant would they actually turn that feed on and allow them to monitor what was going on. The National Party expressed considerable concern about that. We will take the Committee stage very slowly and very carefully to assure ourselves that the privacy of individuals will be maintained, and that we remove any suspicion that the intelligence agencies can listen without an authority, as appropriate. We want to do that because we take it upon ourselves as a responsibility to ensure that the legislation that provides for a curtailment of our privacy and rights is appropriate to the circumstances.
The bill also has significant new insertions in respect of crimes against rights of property. We will want to move amendments to those in the Committee stage. We believe that there should be significant changes to the Crimes Act. The provisions the Government has implemented with the sentencing and parole suite of bills is inadequate. We will view this as an opportunity to provide some of the more certain and definitive sentencing that New Zealanders voted for in the 1999 Withers referendum.
Increasingly, the courts are frustrated by the lack of specific offences in respect of a number of computer crimes. The courts are finding themselves in the difficult position of having to construe existing law in order to provide penalty and sanction against those who hack into computers, illegally obtain information, and create denial of service attacks. We need to make sure that this bill is passed rapidly so that those new offences are in place and the courts can act upon them.
This is a Government that goes on and on about how it wants New Zealand to be part of the knowledge economy, that it wants to have lots of broadband for Internet delivery, yet when it comes to supporting the infrastructure to ensure that we have security and that the rights of the owners of computer infrastructure are protected, this Government is sadly wanting. I think it is consistent with the Government’s whole approach to the Internet and to telecommunications. This is a Government that goes on and on about why we need broadband past every home in New Zealand, but it cannot explain why the broadband uptake in New Zealand is so poor.
I draw the Government’s attention to some research that was released last week by the Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation at the Victoria University of Wellington. It has hit it on the head. It said that this Government has got the wrong strategy because it keeps talking about providing great Internet access for all New Zealanders, but it ignores the fact that the reason people would want to go on to these new expensive broadband platforms is that their application justifies it—that is, it is worthwhile, and they have something that can use all that capacity. Most New Zealanders use the Internet only for the occasional surf and for email. That does not require the expense of linking into broadband 24 hours a day.
So what that indicates is that the Government has the wrong idea on all this stuff. I think it has the wrong idea on its priorities for these new offences. It has taken the Government 4 years to do anything. We could have another year before those offences are put in place. I say to this Government that it should walk the walk. As a correspondent in the New Zealand Herald wrote just some weeks ago, the Government talked the talk but it did not walk the walk, particularly when it came to the laws proposed in this bill. So my urgent call to the Government is that it should give this bill the priority it is due, walk the walk, and give the New Zealand computer community the safeguards it needs.
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that does not provide for computer crime. But it is about time that we saw the creation of new offences that make it illegal to intercept, access, use, or damage data held on computers, without authorisation. Our approach is at odds with our obligation to the international community, the Convention on Cybercrime, approved by the Council of Europe in 2001, and an APEC telecommunications document Cybersecurity: A Strategy for APEC. In other words, with regard to computer offences, legislatively speaking we are behind in terms of most Western countries.
Critics argue that our domestic law should not be dictated to by international or foreign interests. Yet in the age of the Internet, national boundaries mean very little in the commissioning of the sorts of offences we are currently encountering. I refer to offences such as computer hacking for delinquent and economic intelligence purposes. Frustratingly, this often leaves law enforcement authorities with their hands tied, unable to crack down on offences on citizens in their own jurisdiction, perpetrated by individuals somewhere on the other side of the world. Among other reasons, that is why our interest must be to pass this bill. By falling in line with the international community and appropriating a comparable offence regime we will be enacting provisions of an international standard.
This bill was initially stalled following the objections of Internet service providers at what they perceived would be an onerous burden on their businesses to provide police and other intelligence agencies with the interception capabilities this bill requires of them. Yet I note the change of position of the industry from organisations such as the Information Technology Association, and the reported comments of the association’s director, Jim O’Neill, last year, that the passage of the bill was now necessary so that they could get on with implementing the full economic potential of some of the technologies they had. In other words, it appears that Internet service providers have accepted the reality of the need for greater enforcement capability by authorities and are prepared to support the bill so that they can get on with their core business.
I would also like to point out to those concerned about compliance costs that increased enforcement powers will mean that we are all served by better protection against hackers. It will mean that our computer systems will crash less often, be less infected with email viruses, and provide a more efficient basis for business.
As I have said, presently we have no specific computer-related offences. The courts have, in turn, interpreted laws covering fraud, theft, criminal damage, and even trespass sufficiently broadly to bring activities that we need to outlaw within the ambit of present legislation. Common law has evolved to satisfy the gap.
Critics of this bill feel that this legislation is unnecessary, given the way the courts have dealt with the issue. But a lack of statutory recognition of these Internet and computer-based offences remains, nevertheless, problematic. The law as a whole needs to be more than piecemeal development. I do not mean to detract from the value of common or judge-made law, but it is necessary in many areas of the law for an integrative scheme to be enacted. For example, in 1999, in the case of R v Wilkinson, the Court of Appeal threw out a conviction for theft in a convoluted electronic transfer of funds case. I think that well illustrates the need for more specific statutes in this area.
I also note a paper commissioned by the policy committee of the New Zealand Computer Society in 1989. It was produced by a special project group, under Victoria University senior law lecturer and criminal law guru, John Miller.
The paper espoused two particular principles that remain relevant today. Firstly, the criminal law must remain certain. Whenever the State sanctions citizens for their actions, the conditions upon which this is predicated must be certain and must be known. The alternative is that where there is any doubt about the criminal law’s application, the benefit of such a doubt must be given to the accused. This is an undesired effect if hackers are resultantly left to run free. Secondly, a clear signal is needed to emphasise the antisocial nature of hacking and the grave consequences that can arise from it. For example, while the punishment provisions in the bill for computer offences are a range of jail terms, under Missouri law victims of computer crime can recover the costs of any expenditure reasonably incurred by the owner to verify whether a computer system was damaged by the access. The intent is to encourage victims of computer crime to take action when they are victimised.
I note the work of the select committee in examining this bill and the changes it has made as far as ensuring that members of the Government Communications Security Bureau and our other intelligence agencies will not be prosecuted under the bill for the legitimate activities they can carry out in protecting national security and similar matters. They are positive changes. One example is the recent Government Communications Security Bureau offshoot, the Centre for Critical Infrastructure Protection, which I am led to believe is directed to protect our critical infrastructures such as power grids, water supplies, and air travel, from Internet-based crime.
I understand that the paranoid party of Aotearoa—the Greens—will be concerned that this so-called expansion of State power will lead inevitably to an age of surveillance and unmitigated State intrusion into our private lives, and that we are only one step down the road from a security State. As per usual, if we pause to shake off our agendas, the answer to that sort of rubbish is quite clear. In truth this bill places a strict limit on the organisations that can monitor Internet traffic, emails, and the like, as well as what they can monitor and when they can monitor it.
The police electronic crime unit is on record as stating that the police will not be trawling through emails looking for suspicious correspondence. It has further stated that it will target and name suspects’ emails only after getting a court warrant. Most of all, and perhaps this is the most disconcerting, even if the police wanted to, they simply do not have the resources to spend hours monitoring the emails of every potential crackpot.
I have also had it pointed out to me that those organisations that will have the authority to intercept Internet traffic are already undertaking that type of surveillance anyway. Further, as our society becomes increasingly aware of the number of paedophiles who use the Internet to contact innocent children, trade in images that exploit our children, and that sort of monitoring, the authority is absolutely necessary if we are at all serious about combating such problems. I, for one, am not prepared to accept the irrational fears of a few whilst those sorts of perverts are going undetected.
Finally, I note the changes the bill makes to some property offences such as the simplification of the definition of burglary. Also, it is a positive move to extend the grounds on which blackmail can take place to include threats to disclose matters other than criminal and sexual behaviour. I commend the bill to the House.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
Bill to proceed.
The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.