Carter John: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter John: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6093. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 The National Party supports the concept of amalgamating Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand. We made that clear at the very beginning when we had the bill’s first reading and during the select committee process. However having said that there are a number of issues that disappoint the National Party and I am going to spend the next 9½ minutes talking not just in relation to this bill but in telling the House why the National Party is unhappy with what the Government is doing with this legislation. 
The first thing is that while it is fine that the Government is looking to combine the two agencies—indeed it has taken National Party policy and is now implementing it; we are pleased to see that—it is the practical aspects that worry the National caucus as I know they worry the ACT party and the New Zealand First Party. The practicalities of what the Government is doing with supporting industry in New Zealand worry the National Party. 
 The National Party agrees with the concept of the one-stop shop. We have no problem about that. A little later I will talk about some of the things it should be doing but we agree there should be a one-stop shop instead of not just those agencies but the country will be surprised to know that there are 32 different Government departments that deliver support to try to encourage development. We have 32 different Government authorities delivering support for industry. What a nonsense! Why do we need that much bureaucracy in this country? People are absolutely astounded when they hear that there is not just one not just two not just half a dozen but 32 such departments. Yet this Government is now going around saying that this amalgamation is great that it is fantastic because out of those 32 it has brought two together. What about the other 30? 
Brian Connell 
: Can we fix it? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Can we fix it? Of course we can. The first disappointing thing about this legislation is that it does not go far enough. I know there are members opposite including the Minister of Finance who would much rather see us get away from all this bureaucracy and put the 32 organisations into one and deliver good services to industry in the country. That is the first thing. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Kia ora that’s the one. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I know that the member for Te Tai Tokerau agrees. We have discussed this on a number of occasions. He would like to see a whole lot more brought together in one bundle. 
The second point is that combining Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand does not necessarily mean that it will be a success. Indeed one of the things we need to ask as we are discussing this—and we will certainly explore this more while going through the Committee stage—is where are the successes? Where are the successes from what Mr Jim Anderton has done with regard to his portfolio in this area? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Name one. 
JOHN CARTER 
: There may be one or two. Let us be fair: there may be some successes and maybe Mr Anderton will come and tell us— 
Brian Connell 
: Name five! 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am sorry but I cannot because in my whole exploration in this area as a spokesman—and along with my associate my friend Brian Connell we have explored it widely—I have not come up with anybody who says: “This has been helpful to our business and has taken us right through. The business is making a million dollars or a hundred thousand dollars for the country and we’re doing well.” There may be some. So let us be generous to the Government and to Jim Anderton. He may well tell us about that during the Committee stage. 
I do know of people who have not succeeded and that is the point I want to explore. While we are putting these two organisations together—sadly we are not loading the other 30 in—we should be looking at what we are trying to do. We are trying to promote business. We are trying to encourage people who have good ideas to get on their feet and get going. This is where the Government fails with what it is doing. It relies too much on bureaucracy and not enough on the practical aspects of supporting small businesses—people with good ideas—to get on their feet. I say that we either make a decision that we are going to do it or we get out. We should not start somebody off then leave that person stranded halfway. Sadly that is what happens now. 
I have come across people as I know my friend and colleague Brian Connell has on many occasions who have gone to Industry New Zealand or Trade New Zealand and said: “I want to put this idea forward. Can you give us some support?”. They go through the whole procedure of applications; it takes them a number of months to go through it as they have to fill out a whole lot of forms a whole lot of bureaucrats come and look at them they fiddle around with it and finally it gets signed off: “Yep away you go. We’ll give $15000 $50000 or $100000 to get on with the job and start your idea off.” Those people think: “Great we’re on our way. Here we go.” 
So they get a grant for 12 months. It gets them started they get going they are enthusiastic things are starting to go right but a business does not always get on its feet in 12 months. It actually takes a bit longer. Indeed it can sometimes take 4 or 5 years to get a business successfully launched and on its way. So after 12 months they are told to come back and apply again. So away they go. They go through the whole procedure again. But this time they are a bit broke they are struggling for money they have mortgaged their homes they have borrowed some money off their family and what happens is they are in there with a whole suite of other people and the Minister for Industry and Regional Development says: “No no. You’ve already had a shot. We’re not doing it again. We’ve given you a start. That’s enough; too bad.” So they fail and I think that is most unfortunate. 
I bring to the attention of the House one organisation that I think is a success and that is the Methodist Employment Generation Fund. I have been to see them and I recommend to others that they go and have a look at that concept. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is it a Government department? 
JOHN CARTER 
: No it is not a Government body at all. It is a private organisation that helps small businesses get on their feet. What it does is start those businesses off and it stays with them. It helps them through and gets them going until they are successful and making money then the funds are returned and it reinvests. That is what this Government should be doing with taxpayers’ money. It should be making sure it stays with a business all the way through until it is on its feet. Occasionally there will be a failure. If it is going to do it— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: No no. 
JOHN CARTER 
: OK we have a philosophical thing going on here. The member Ken Shirley and I would have a debate about whether one should get involved or not at all. But if one does get involved with people then for goodness’ sake they should not be left stranded. We should stay with them make sure they are successful get them on their feet get them going let them earn some money for the country and for themselves let them employ people and let them create industry which is what we are talking about. Then when they have got going they will repay the taxpayers’ money—not just the initial grant but also significant taxes—and certainly supply opportunities for people in this country. 
In other words if we are going to do it from time to time we should pick winners. I know that is not something that this Government likes to do and that it is not something that the far right likes to do either but if we are going to do it we should do it properly and stay with it. We should make sure that we do what the Methodist Employment Generation Fund does and stay with people until they are successful. That is what this bill should be all about. I am afraid that it will not achieve what it should be doing.