Shirley Ken: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Shirley Ken: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6315] 
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 $210000 per year. We have now learnt that his salary bracket was actually in the $230000 to $240000 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 $240000 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 $100000 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 $240000 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.