Wong Pansy: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Wong Pansy: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6281] 
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 $75000 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.