Jones Dail: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4349] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First would like a Government member to stand and explain why New Zealand First should once again support a bill that refers to Industry New Zealand and the matters relating to it. It was only in July 2000 in the middle of 2000 that New Zealand First went to the trouble of supporting the Hon Jim Anderton with his Economic Development (Industry New Zealand and Ministry of Economic Development) Bill. We steadfastly supported that Labour Government’s proposal of an Industry New Zealand body because we are supportive of anything that will improve the welfare of New Zealand. But it is clear that in barely 2½ years this minority Labour Government’s policy in this area has failed. Otherwise why would it have a bill in the House repealing an Act that it was responsible for and passed as recently as less than 3 years ago? It is not surprising that this Government does not have the support of business in New Zealand any more and that business support for this Government is declining. The reason is that its own policies are changing within a span of less than 3 years which is the usual term of a Government. I would like a Labour Party member to stand up and say why New Zealand First should continue to support this measure—a measure that we gave such steadfast support to less than 3 years ago. 
It is interesting that the United Future member Gordon Copeland who spoke before me should now support this bill because that party steadfastly opposed the previous legislation which created Industry New Zealand. Right throughout in every vote United Future opposed that legislation. But today like the lapdog political party it is its members get up and support Labour even though they essentially voted against the creation of Industry New Zealand less than 3 years ago. They look at me with some surprise. Obviously they have not done their homework in this matter and have left themselves wide open to continuing ridicule. And we will be ridiculing them time and time again in this way I am sure as this term progresses. Less than 3 years ago they said one thing but today they are here in the House saying another thing and supporting this legislation. 
New Zealand First has always supported the concept of Industry New Zealand but we are entitled to ask why we should support it. Why has there been such a failure on the part of this minority Labour Government with this Industry New Zealand body? Why should we support it today in a new form without any indication that it will be successful? What is there in this particular bill that will make this body more successful than the one that has failed? Obviously it has failed; otherwise the Government would not be back in this House changing something that it created only a short time ago. 
It has failed despite all the promises from the Hon Jim Anderton as set out in  
Hansard 
 Volume 585 at page 3721 onwards dated 27 July 2000. I suspect the main reason would be that there has not been enough money. There have been lots of good ideas and lots of talk from the Hon Jim Anderton about development of New Zealand industry and trade and the like but there has been really no support from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance in this area. That is why the whole idea of Industry New Zealand has collapsed in a dismal heap. Now the Government is trying to wipe it away by merging it with something else and trying perhaps to get some money from that other body to make sure that the concept of Industry New Zealand will survive. 
It is interesting to reflect on a recent speech made by the Hon Jim Anderton. He said on 27 July 2000—on page 3722 of  
Hansard— 
“Industry New Zealand will be a special-purpose agency with a clear mandate. It will be facilitative it will listen and it will deliver.” Well it has not facilitated anything other than the failure of Sovereign Yachts. Industry New Zealand may have been spoken to but I doubt very much whether it has listened. And it has not delivered anything. It has come to an end. This is virtually the liquidation of a failed Labour Government policy. 
The Act we are repealing provided for the board of Industry New Zealand to establish advisory committees. It set out various provisions for select strategies and recommendations and it set out Industry New Zealand’s amended functions allowing for advisory groups to work on strategies for a particular region. It had all the hallmarks of that old-fashioned and very good idea of the time—but which is now past its time—of regional development. Clearly Labour is saying that it was unable to get the regions to come to the party. It was unable to support the regions it was unable to get new ideas under way so it is quietly trying to sweep Industry New Zealand away under the carpet and hoping that no one from the regions ever mentions that body to it again. 
What do the Gisbornes of this world have to say? I would like the member for Gisborne to stand up and tell me what the consequence of Industry New Zealand being merged will be. I am sure this idea was sold to the member for Gisborne a long time ago—at least less than 3 years ago. What do the member for Whanganui and the members for all those other smaller seats have to say including the member for Masterton? I expect the member for Masterton will get up and tell us why the Industry New Zealand Act which was going to foster regional development should now be got rid of by the Hon. Jim Anderton—a Minister who only a little while ago was saying what a wonderful idea it was and how much it was going to deliver to the people of New Zealand. 
Why is the Government cutting down the time of the bill at the select committee to 1 month? Obviously it is because it does not want the people of New Zealand to come to the committee and say: “You guys failed again. That’s why we don’t support you any more. That’s why we don’t support this minority Labour Government any more.” The minority Labour Government members cannot stand to take the medicine of being told that their policies are failing so they want to concertina the bill’s time at the select committee down to 1 month. Bills often spend 6 months or even 12 months at a select committee. We will achieve nothing in 1 month. There will be barely time for submitters to respond to the notice in the papers about the select committee hearings before those hearings will be over. That is why the Labour Party Government— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: They may as well have done it in urgency. 
DAIL JONES 
: As my honourable friend says the Government might as well have done it in urgency because the select committee process is an utter sham. As I said before Industry New Zealand was a body that was going to listen. It was going to deliver. Well it has not been heard and it is now being shut up. It is shutting up shop well and truly. It is a failure on the part of this minority Labour Government. It admits that so early in this term of its administration. No wonder industry does not want it in office any more! 
However New Zealand First is always willing to try something. We always live in hope but we will be opposing the bill’s time at the select committee being reduced to 1 month. We want it to have its proper time there. At the end of the day we will still support the bill going to the select committee because we need the people of New Zealand to come and tell the Labour Party representatives on it that they do not support them and to ask United Future why it changed its mind. After all United Future opposed the previous legislation all the way through; now that party comes to the House and supports this bill. The public should be able to ask United Future what was not good about that legislation a little while ago and why it thinks this bill is good today. As I said at the beginning I look forward to a Labour Party member explaining why the Hon Jim Anderton has to admit total defeat with this legislation and why we cannot have more time in the select committee to discuss the matter.